CIHM 
Microfiche 


({Monographs) 


ICIMH 

Collection  de 
microfiches 
(monographies) 


Canadian  Inatituta  for  Hiatorical  Microraproductiona  /  Inatitut  Canadian  da  microraproductiona  hiatoriquaa 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes  /  Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best  original 
copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this  copy  which 
may  be  bibliographically  unique,  which  may  alter  any  of 
the  images  in  the  reproduction,  or  which  may 
significantly  change  the  usual  method  of  filming  are 
checked  below. 


D 


Coloured  rovers  / 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I   Covers  damaged  / 


Couverture  endommag^e 


a   Covers  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Couverture  restaur^e  et/ou  pellicul^e 

Cover  title  missing  /  Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

I Coloured  maps  /  Cartes  g6ographiques  en  couleur 

□   Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)  / 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

□   Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations  / 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material  / 
ReliS  avep  d'autres  documents 

Only  edition  available  / 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion  along 
interior  margin  /  La  reliure  ^err^e  peut  causer  de 
I'ombre  ou  de  la  distorsion  ie  long  de  la  marge 
int^rieure. 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restorations  may  appear 
within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these  have  been 
omitted  from  filming  /  II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages 
blanches  ajout^es  lors  d'une  restauration 
apparaissent  dans  le  texte,  mais,  lorsque  cela  ^tait 
possible,  ces  pages  n'ont  pas  6\6  film^es. 


D 
D 
D 


D 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire  qu'il  lui  a 
i\6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details  de  cet  exem- 
plaire qui  sont  peut-£tre  uniques  du  point  de  vue  bibli- 
ographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier  une  image  reproduite, 
ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une  modification  dans  la  m^tho- 
de  normale  de  filmage  sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 

J  Coloured  pages  /  Pages  de  couleur 

I I  Pages  damaged  /  Pages  endommag6es 


D 


Pages  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Pages  restaurdes  et/ou  pellicul^es 


0   Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed  / 
Pages  dteolor^es,  tachetdes  ou  piqu^es 

Pages  detached  /  Pages  d^tach^es 

|v/]  Showthrough  /  Transparence 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies  / 


□ 


D 


Quality  in^gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material  / 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata  slips, 
tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  totalement  ou 
partiellement  obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une 
pelure,  etc.,  ont  ^t^  film^es  k  nouveau  de  fa^on  k 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 

Opposing  pages  with  varying  colouration  or 
discolourations  are  filmed  twice  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  s'opposant  ayant  des 
colorations  variables  ou  des  decolorations  sont 
film^es  deux  fois  afin  d'obtenir  la  meilleure  image 
possible. 


B 


Additional  comments  / 
Commentaires  suppl^mentaires: 


Text  In  Latin  and  English  on  opposite  pages,  ntabered  In  diq>11cata. 


This  Ittm  Is  (ilmsd  at  the  rtductlon  ratio  chtektd  balow  / 

C«  documtnt  tst  U\mi  au  taux  da  raduction  indiqua  ci-datieui. 


t 

lOx 

14x 

18x 

22x 

28x 

30x 

y 

12x 

16x 

20x 

24x 

28x 

32x 

The  copy  filmsd  h«r«  has  b««n  raproducad  thanks 
to  tha  9anarosity  of: 

National  Library  of  Canada 


L'axamplaira  filmt  fut  raproduit  grica  k  la 
gAnirosit*  da: 

Bibliothiqua  nationale  du  Caxuida 


Tha  imagas  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  bast  quality 
possibia  considaring  tha  condition  and  lagibility 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  Kaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacif icationa. 


Las  imagas  suivantas  ont  it*  raproduitas  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  st 
da  la  nottat*  da  I'axamplsira  filmi.  at  sn 
conformity  avac  laa  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 


Original  copies  in  printad  papar  covars  ara  fllmad 
beginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
sion,  or  tha  back  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copias  ara  filmad  beginning  on  tha 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
sion.  and  anding  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illuatratad  impression. 


The  laat  recorded  frame  on  eech  microfiche 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  -^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  ▼  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  ara  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bonom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Lea  exemplairas  originaux  dont  la  couvarture  sn 
papier  eat  imprimie  sent  filmis  en  commencant 
par  la  premier  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  par  la 
derniire  paga  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'Impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  salon  la  cas.  Tous  laa  autras  exemplairas 
originaux  sont  filmis  an  commandant  par  la 
pramiAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  at  en  terminant  par 
la  darniire  paga  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  spparaitra  sur  la 
darniire  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbols  — »  signifie  "A  SUIVRE".  ie 
symbols  ▼  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartas,  planches,  ubieaux,  etc.,  pauvant  atra 
filmto  i  des  taux  de  reduction  diffirenis. 
Lorsque  la  document  est  trop  grand  pour  itra 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichi,  11  est  filmi  k  partir 
de  Tangle  supiriaur  gauche,  de  gauche  k  droita. 
at  da  haut  an  baa.  an  prenant  le  nombre 
d'imegea  nicassaira.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mitheda. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

MKaocorr  rboiution  test  chart 

(ANSI  ond  ISO  TEST  CHART  No   2) 


2.5 
2.2 


in 

I 


1.8 


1.6 


ji 


/APPLIED  IIVA^GE    Inc 

^bbi  (ost   Uo.ri   St'e«t 

Roc^•st•f     Nv«    York  '*609       uSA 

(,716)    »S^    ■  OWO   -   Phone 

1716)    288  -  5989   -  (oi 


HVGONIS    GROTII 

MARE    LIBERVM 

SIVE 

DE   IVRE  QVOD  B  VrAVIS 

COMPETIT 

AD  INDICANA  COMMERCIA, 

DISSERTATIO 


1608 


/^ 


^■<^- j 


l.^l 


fl   Carnegie   Endowment   for   International 

I  DIVISION  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

I 


Peace 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


OR 


THE  RIGHT  WHICH  BELONGS  TO  THE  DUTCH 
TO  TAKE   PART  IN  THE  EAST  INDIAN  TRADE 


A  DISSERTATION  BY 

HUGO    GROTIUS 

TRANSLATED  WITH  A  REVISION  OF  THE  LATIN  TEXT  OF  168S 
BT 

RALPH  VAN  DEMAN  MAGOFFIN,  Ph.D. 

AMociate  Professor  of  Greek  and  Romaa  History 
The  Johns  Hopkins  University 


EDITED  WITH  AN  INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 
BT 

JAMES    BROWN     SCOTT 
DIRECTOR 


NEW  YORK 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

AMERICAN  BRANCH:  «»  Wirr  SIWD  Stmit 

LONDON,  TORONTO,  MELBOURNE.  AND  BOMBAY 
HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

1916 


,N\M-\ 


253195 


COPYRIGHT  1916 

BY   THE 

CARNEGIB  ENDOWMENT  FUR  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE 
Washikgton,  d.  c. 


THi  auiKN  «  toom  CO  ^nt»» 


1*1 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 

Since  the  month  of  August,  1914,  the  expression  "  Free- 
dom of  the  Seas  "  has  been  on  the  lips  alike  of  belligerent 
and  neutral,  and  it  seems  as  advisable  as  it  is  timely  to 
issue— for  the  tirst  time  in  English— the  famous  Latin 
tractate  of  Grotius  proclaiming,  explaining,  and  in  no  small 
measure  making  the  "  freedom  of  the  seas."  ' 

The  title  of  the  little  book,  first  published,  anonymously, 
in  November,  1608,  explains  the  reason  for  its  composition: 
"  The  Freedom  of  the  Seas,  or  the  Right  which  belongs  to 
the  Dutch  to  take  part  in  the  East  Indian  trade."  It  was 
an  open  secret  that  it  was  written  by  the  young  Dutch 
scholar  and  lawyer,  Hugo  Grotius.  It  was  a  secret  and 
remained  a  secret  until  1868  that  the  Mare  Liber  urn  was 
none  other  than  Chapter  XII  of  the  treatise  De  Jure 
Fraedae.  written  by  Grotius  in  the  winter  of  1604-5,  which 
first  came  to  light  in  1864  and  was  given  to  the  world  four 

years  later.* 

The  publication  of  the  treatise  on  the  law  of  prize  is 
important  as  showing  that  the  author  of  the  Mare  Liberum 
was  already  an  accomplished  international  lawyer,  and  it 

«  For  the  freedom  of  the  seas  and  the  relation  of  Grotius  to  the  doctrine, 
see  Ernest  Nys's  Le>  Originei  du  Droit  Inlfrnationat  (189*),  PP-  379-38T,  and 
the  same  author's  Etiidet  de  Droit  International  ,t  de  Droit  Politique,  i"  serie 
(1901),  Vne  Bataille  de  Litre,,  pp.  im-rti.  For  an  account  in  English  see 
Walker's  Histort,  of  the  Law  of  yatiom,  Vol.  I   (1899).  pp.  -278-283. 

For  an  interesting  sketch  of  the  illustrious  author  of  the  Mare  Liberum,  see 
Motley's  The  Life  and  Death  of  John  of  liarneveld.  Vol.  II,  Chap.  XXII; 
for  an  analysis  of  Grotius'  views  on  the  law  of  nations,  see  Hallam's  Intro- 
d„ction  to  the  Literature  of  Europe  (4th  edition).  Vol.  II,  Part  III,  Chap. 
IV,  Sec.  Ill;  for  an  account  of  Grotius  as  a  humanist,  see  Sandys'  History 
of    Clascal    Scholarship    (1908),    Vol.    II,    pp.    315-319. 

» llurtonii  Orotii  De  Jure  Praedae,  edited,  with  an  introduction,  by  H.  G. 
Hamaker,  and  published  at  The  Hague  in  1868  by  Martinus  Nijhofif. 


VI 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 


proves  beyond  perad venture  that  the  masterpiece  of  1625 
on  the  "  Law  of  War  and  Peace  "  was  not  a  hurried  pro- 
duction, but  the  culmination  of  study  and  reflection  ex- 
tending over  twenty  years  and  more.  More  important 
still  is  the  fact  that  neither  the  law  of  prize  nor  the  Mare 
Liberum  was  a  philosophic  exercise,  for  it  appears  that 
Grotius  had  been  retained  by  the  Dutch  East  India  Com- 
pany to  justify  the  capture  by  one  of  its  ships  of  a  Portu- 
guese galleon  in  the  straits  of  Malacca  in  the  year  1602; 
that  the  treatise  on  the  law  of  prize,  of  which  the  Mare 
Liberum  is  a  chapter,  was  in  the  nature  of  a  brief;  and  that 
the  first  systematic  treatise  on  the  law  of  nations — The  Law 
of  War  and  Peace — was  not  merely  a  philosophical  disquisi- 
tion, but  that  it  was  the  direct  outgrowth  of  an  actual  case 
and  of  professional  employment.' 

•  In  support  of  the  view  that  Grotius  appeared  as  counsel  in  cases  arising 
out  of  captures  made  by  vessels  in  the  service  of  the  Dutch  East  India  Company, 
and  that  the  treatise,  De  Jure  Praedae,  is  a  legal  brief,  see  R.  Fruin's  Een 
Onuitgegeven  Werk  van  Hugo  De  Groot  in  Vertpreide  Oetchriften,  Vol.  Ill, 
pp.  367-445.     The  following  passages  are  quoted   from  this   remarlcable  essay: 

"While  busy  with  the  sale  of  the  goods  [of  the  captured  merchantman 
Catherine,  which  had  been  unloaded  in  the  Amsterdam  arsenal],  the  process  of 
adjudicating  the  booty  before  the  admiralty  court  was  conducted  in  the  usual 
forms.  Claimants:  .\dvocate  General  of  Holland,  the  Board  of  eight  .Aldermen, 
and  Admiral  Heemskerck;  ...  on  Thursday,  September  9.  I(i04,  final  sentence' 
was  rendered,  and  'the  merchantman  together  with  the  goods  taken  from  it 
were  declared  forfeited  and  confiscated'"   (pp.  389-390). 

"  Hulsius  in  some  measure  replaces  whai  the  fire  at  the  .Marine  Arsenal 
has  robbed  us  of;  anicing  other  records  he  has  preserved  for  us  in  his  Aehte 
Srhlfart  the  sentence  pronounced  in  this  matter  by  the  admiralty,  and  of  which 
we  have  knowledge  from  no  other  sources.  From  it  we  lejrn  the  grounds  upon 
which  the  claimants  demanded  the  adjudication  of  the  booty.  These  grounds 
are  tl  ;  same  twelve  which  De  Groot  discusses  in  his  l)ook.  .  .  .  This  concordance 
can  bt  explained  on  the  ground  that  De  Groot  must  hjive  had  acquaintance  with 
the  sertfnce;  but  he  was  not  a  man  merely  to  repeat  what  others  had  before  him 
witnessed.  I  should  be  inclined  to  feel  that  in  the  process  he  had  served  as 
counsel  for  the  Company,  and  that  he  himself  was  one  of  the  authors  of  the 
written  claim  upon  which  the  -sentence  was  iiased.  It  would  not  then  he  sur- 
prising if  in  his  book  he  should  develop  at  greater  length  and  throw  light  upon 
what  had  already  be.  ti  set   forth  in  the  claim"   (pp.  390-391). 

"  I  cannot  state  definitely  that  Hugo  De  Groot  was  persuaded  by  the  Directors 
to  write  such   an   argument;    1   have   been   unable   to  discover   any  evidence   to 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 


VII 


The  Spaniards,  as  is  well  known,  then  claimed  the 
Pacific  Ocean  and  tht  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  Portugal 
claimed,  in  like  manner,  the  Atlantic  south  ot  "lorocco  and 
the  Indian  Ocean,  and  both  nations,  at  this  time  under  a 
common  sovereign,  claimed  and  sought  to  exercise  the  right 
of  excluding  all  foreigners  from  navigating  or  entering 
these  waters.  The  Dutch,  then  at  war  with  Spain,  although 
not  technically  at  war  with  Portugal,  established  themselves 
in  1598  in  the  island  of  jSIauritius.  Shortly  thereafter  they 
made  settlements  in  Java  and  in  the  Moluccas.  In  1602 
the  Dutch  East  India  Company  was  formed,  and,  as  it  at- 
tempted to  trade  with  the  East  Indies,  its  vessels  came  into 
competition  with  those  of  the  Portuguese  engaged  in  the 
Eastern  trade,  which  sought  to  exclude  them  from  the 
Inaian  waters.  One  Ileemskerck,  a  captain  in  the  employ 
of  the  Company,  took  a  large  Portuguese  galleon  in  the 
Straits  of  Malacca.  To  trade  with  the  East  Indies  was  one 
thing,  to  capture  Portuguese  vessels  was  quite  another  thing. 
Therefore,  some  members  of  the  Company  refused  their 
parts  of  the  prize ;  others  sold  their  shares  in  the  company, 
and  still  others  thought  of  establishing  a  new  company  in 
France,  under  the  protection  of  King  Henry  IV,  which 
should  trade  in  peace  and  abstain  from  all  warlike  action. 
The  matter  was  therefore  one  of  no  little  importance,  and 
it  appears  that  Grotius  was  consulted  and  wrote  his  treatise 
on  the  iaw  of  prize,  which  is  in  the  nature  of  a  brief  and 
is,  at  any  rate,  a  lawj'er's  argument.' 

that  end.  That  he  was  in  close  relations  with  the  Company,  he  himself  says  in 
a  letter  of  later  date,  addressed  to  his  brother.  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt 
that  in  writing  his  work  he  made  use  of  the  archives  of  the  United  Company  and 
of  its  predecessor.  If  the  supposition,  which  I  have  elsewhere  ventured  to  make 
is  co'rect,  that  is  to  say,  that  in  the  conduct  of  the  case  he  appeared  as  advocate 
for  the  Company,  it  would  then  appear  most  probable  that,  after  consultation 
with  the  directors,  he  set  about  ■  riting  his  book,  which  was  to  be  a  second  plea 
in  their  behalf"   (p.  403). 

•For  the  account  which  Grotius  himself  gives  of  the  incident,  see  his  Annalet 
ct  Uittoriae  de  Rehnt  Belgicit  ah  Obilu  Philippi  Rerjig  usque  ad  Indueiat  Anni 
1609,  written  in  I61i,  but  first  published  in  1658,  Book  1,  p.  429. 


IT 


vui 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 


In  1608  Spain  and  Holland  began  negotiations  which, 
on  April  9,  1609,  resulted  in  the  truce  of  Antwerp  for  the 
period  of  12  years,  and,  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations, 
Spain  tried  to  secure  from  the  United  Provinces  a  renuncia- 
tion of  their  right  to  trade  in  the  East  and  West  Indies. 
The  Dutch  East  India  Company  thereupon,  it  would  appear, 
requested  Grotii's  to  publish  that  part  of  his  brief  dealing 
with  the  freedom  of  the  seas.  This  was  done  under  the 
title  of  Mare  Libenim,  with  such  changes  as  were  necessary 
to  enable  it  to  stand  alone. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  3Iare  Liberum  was  written 
to  refute  the  unjustified  claims  of  Spain  and  Portugal  to 
the  big',  seas  and  to  exclude  foreigners  therefrom.  The 
claims  of  England,  less  extensive  but  not  less  unjustifiable, 
were  not  mentioned,  and  yet,  if  the  arguments  of  Grotius 
were  sound,  the  English  claims  to  the  high  seas  to  the  south 
and  east  of  England,  as  well  as  to  undefined  regions  to 
the  north  and  west,  would  likewise  fall  to  the  ground. 
Therefore  the  distinguished  English  lawyer,  scholar,  and 
publicist,  John  Selden  by  name,  bestirred  himself  in  behalf 
of  his  country  and  WTote  his  Marc  Clausum  in  1617  or  i618, 
although  it  was  not  published  until  1635,  to  refute  the  little 
tractate,  Mare  hihern  m?  In  the  dedication  to  King  Charles  I, 

For  a.  fuller  account  of  the  clroumstHncrs  under  which  the  treatise  on  the 
law  of  priic  was  written,  see  Ilnmaker's  edition  of  the  De  Jure  Pratdar,  pp. 
vil-viii.  Tile  distinftuished  historian  and  scholar,  Holicrt  J.  Fruin,  after  nn 
exhaustive  examination  of  the  evidence,  informed  Hamaker  that  Cirotlus  was 
retained  l>y  the  Company  to  prepare  the  commentnry  on  the  law  of  price.  The 
Kngllsh  trnnslation  of  HnmHker's  exact  stiitement  reads  as  follows:  "Fruin  Is 
of  the  opinion  that  he  (Crotius)  undertook  this  work  at  the  Instance  of  the 
Company,  and  that  he  appeared  in  it  as  their  spokesman." 

For  nn  analysis  of  the  commentary  I>e  Jure  Prne<iae  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  written,  see  .lules  Hasdevant's  study  on  Orotius,  pp.  1.11- 
137,  155-17!),  in  Pillet's  Iff  FoniMfuri  tlu  ttruil  Intfmntinnal  (1904). 

'  Selih'n's  Mnre  Clausum  was  not  the  only  defense  of  F.ntrhml,  nor  was  the 
Afore  Lihirum  the  only  lance  which  (irotius  hroke  for  the  fre<tlom  of  the  sens. 
In  1613  William  Welwml,  professor  of  Civil  Law  at  tlic  I'niversity  of  Aberdeen, 
puhlished  a  little  liook  entitleil  An  AMilannenl  of  all  the  Sea-hnvei.  in  which 
he  maintained  the  Knglish  side  nf  the  que^ion,  of  which  Title  XXVII.  pp.  61- 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 


IX 


Selden  said:  "There  are  among  foreign  writers,  who 
rashly  attribute  your  Majesty's  more  southern  and  eastern 
sea  to  their  princes.  Nor  are  there  a  few,  who  followmg 
chiefly  some  of  the  ancient  Caesarian  lawyers,  endeavor  to 
affirm  or  beyond  reason  too  easily  admit,  that  all  seas  are 
common  to  the  universality  of  mankind."  The  thesis  of 
Selden  was  twofold:  first,  "that  the  sea,  by  the  law  of 
nature  or  nations,  is  not  common  to  all  men,  but  capable 
of  private  dominion  or  property  as  well  as  the  land  ; 
second,  "  that  the  King  of  Great  Britain  is  lord  jf  the  sea 
flowing  about,  as  an  inseparable  and  perpetual  appendant 
of  the  British  Empire." 

In  this  battle  of  books,  to  use  the  happy  expression  of 
Professor  Nys,  the  Dutch  Scholar  has  had  the  better  of  his 
English  antagonist.  If  it  cannot  be  said  that  Grotius  wears 
his  learning  "  lightly  like  a  flower  ",  the  treatise  of  Selden 
is,  in  comparison,  over-freighted  with  it;  the  Mare  Liberum 
is  still  an  open  book,  the  Mare  Clausum  is  indeed  a  closed 
one,  and  as  flotsam  or  jetsam  on  troubled  waters,  Chapter 
XII  of  the  Law  of  Prize  rides  the  waves,  whereas  its  rival, 
heavv'  and  water-logged,  has  gone  under. 

In  the  leading  case  of  The  Louis  (2  Dodson  210),  de- 
cided in  1817,  some  two  hundred  years  after  Selden's  book 
was  written,  Sir  William  Scott,  later  Lord  Stowell  and  one 
of  Selden's  most  distinguished  countrj-men,  said,  in  reject- 
ing the  claim  of  his  country  to  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction 
beyond  a  marine  league  from  the  British  shore: 

7?,  de«U  with  the  communl'v  «nd  property  of  the  seas.  Two  years  later  W.lwo<l 
publl>hed  a  second  work,  this  time  in  Latin,  rntitle.1  Pr  /)»m.».,.  Man.  Junhu,.,un 
ad  Dominium  praecipe.  Sperlanlil.u.  A..ertia  Vrrv,,  ac  ^f''""''"'-  ... 

Grotius  prepared,  but  did  not  publish,  a  reply  to  \\elwods  firs  a  taok. 
entitled  l>,ffn,io  Capiti.  Quinti  Mari,  JMnri  Oppu!,nnfi  a  OuMmo  n  .M 
Juri,  Cirili.  ProU„ore,  C.piU  .Y.Y.V/  ej«.  Lit'ri  ScripH  An,„ca  >.>rm..ne  ,u. 
Tilulum  Fecit  Compendium  Ugum  Marifimarum.  It  was  ''«;''7"''  "!  ''^ 
same  U.ne  «s  the  eommentary  U.  Jure  Praedo.  •""'/- ,P"';"f;i'";;J^ 
Muller-s  Mar0  Chu,ur,.  B.jrfr„.,r  lot  de  ge.chiedcn,,  der  nr«J.<«.«  van  t.n.jHand 
e?»  ytdrrland  in  dt   zettnlirnd*  teuyn. 


X  INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 

I  have  to  observe,  that  two  principles  of  public  law 
are  generally  recognized  as  fundamental. 

One  is  the  perfect  equality  and  entire  independence 
of  all  distinct  states.  Relative  magnitude  creates  no 
distinction  of  right;  relative  imbecility,  whether  per- 
manent or  casual,  gives  no  additional  right  to  the  more 
powerful  neighbor;  and  any  advantage  seized  upon 
that  ground  is  mere  usurpation.  This  is  the  great 
ft  jndation  of  public  law,  which  it  mainly  concerns  the 
peace  of  mankind,  both  in  their  politic  and  private 
capacities,  to  preserve  inviolate. 

The  second  is,  that  all  nations  being  equal,  all 
have  an  equal  right  to  the  uninterrupted  use  of  the 
unappropriated  parts  of  the  ocean  for  their  navigation. 
In  places  where  no  local  authority  exists,  where  the 
subjects  of  all  states  meet  upon  a  footing  of  entire 
equality  and  independence,  no  one  state,  or  any  of  its 
subjects,  has  a  right  to  assume  or  exercise  authority 
over  the  subjects  of  another. 

In  closing  the  preface  to  the  Mare  Clatmm,  Selden  used 
language,  which  the  undersigned  quotes,  albeit  in  an  inverse 
sense,  as  a  fit  ending  to  this  subject: 

"  Other  passages  there  are  everywhere  of  the  same  kind. 
But  I  enlarge  myself  too  much  in  a  thing  so  manifest. 
Therefore  I  forbear  to  light  a  candle  to  the  sun.  Farewell 
reader." 

James  Brown  Scott, 
Director  of  the  DMsiov  of 
International  Law. 
Washington,  D.  C, 
February  28,  1916. 


i 


I 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE 

The  Latin  Text 

The  Latin  Text  is  based  upon  the  Elzevir  edition  of 
1688,  the  moditications  being  only  such  as  to  bring  the 
Latin  into  conformity  with  the  present  day  Teubner  and 

Oxford  texts. 

References  in  the  notes  to  classic  authors  are  given  in 
unabbreviated  form,  following  in  other  respects  the  The- 
saurus Linguae  Latinae  Index.  Citations  to  the  Civil  Law 
are  givea  in  the  modern  notation,  which  is  followed,  in 
parentheses,  by  the  older  method  of  reference.  The  text 
used  is  that  of  Monimsen,  Krueger,  Schoell  et  Kroll.  The 
Canon  Law  is  cited  from  the  Friedberg  edition  of  1879-81. 
The  abbreviations  used  are  explained  below. 

The  Translation 

The  translator  wishes  to  make  due  acknowledgment  for 
the  passages  from  classic  writers  quoted  from  standard 
translations,  to  which  references  are  also  made  in  the  notes. 
He  has  also  consulted  the  French  translation  of  (irotius  by 
A.  Guichon  de  Grandpont  (1845).  But  his  chief  acknowl- 
eilpuent  is  to  his  colleague  and  friend.  Professor  Kirby 
Flower  Smith  of  The  Johns  Hopkins  University,  to  whom 
he  read  the  translation,  nnd  wlio  gave  him  the  benetit  of  his 
knowledge  of  Latin  and  his  taste  in  English,  in  a  number 
01  tnniblesome  passages.  Many  niceties  of  the  translation 
belong  to  Professor  Smith,  but  mistakes  in  interpretation 
belong  to  the  translator  alone. 

Acknowledgment  and  thanks  are  also  due  to  Professor 


!T 


Xll 


PREFACE 


Westel  Woodbury  Willoughby  of  Johns  Hopkins,  who 
has  been  so  good  as  to  read  the  translation  through  in 
galley  proof  and  give  the  translator  the  benefit  of  his 
technical  knowledge  of  law;  to  his  Johns  Hopkins  col- 
league, Professor  Wilfred  P.  Mustar '  who  has  helped 
him  out  of  a  number  of  difficulties;  t(,  Lishop  Shahan, 
Rector  of  the  Catholic  University  of  America,  who  has 
given  of  his  time  to  help  expand  several  of  Grotius' 
abl)reviated  references  to  theological  or  canonical  authors; 
to  John  Curlett  Martin,  Johns  Hopkins  Fellow  in  Greek, 
who  has  been  of  great  assistance  in  the  verification  of  refer- 
ences; and  to  the  men  of  the  Quinn  and  Boden  Company 
for  their  courteous  assistance  while  the  book  was  going 
through  the  press. 

List  of  Abbreviations 

Auth.,  Authenticum, 

Clem.,  Constitutiones  Clementis  Papae  Quinti. 
Dist.,  Distinctio  Decreti  Gratiani. 

Extravag..  Constitutiones  XX  D.  loannis  Papae  XXII. 
Lib.  VI,  Lil)er  sextus  Decretalium  D.  Bonifacii  Papae 
VIII. 

Other  abbreviations  should  oflTer  no  difficulties. 


Notes  of  Explanation 

The  words  and  phrases  in  the  Latin  text  in  capitals  fol- 
low the  type  of  the  Elzevir  text. 

In  orrler  that  lM)th  text  and  translation  may  be  complete 
in  the  ;  's,  the  notes  belctw  the  translation  follow  the 
notes  ot  i.ic  text  in  shortened  or  expanded  form,  or  in  du- 
plicate, ns  the  occasion  would  seem  to  demand.  The  notes  in 
Grotius'  Latin  text  are  in  a  most  abbreviated  form,  and  the 
references  are  seldom  specific.  They  have  been  expanded 
without  further  explanation. 

i  ]  in  the  translation,  text,  or  notes,  inclose  additions 
made  by  the  translator. 


CAPITA  DISSERTATIONIS  | 

HVGONIS  GROTII  DE  MARE  LIBERO  I 

riaiNA        'I 

Ad  Principes  populosque  liberos  orbis  Chris-  1 

tiani 1      ^ 

C4PVT  J 

1.    lure  gentium  quibusvis  ad  quosvis  liberam  esse  i 

navigationem 7 

II.  Lusitanos  nullum  habere  ius  dominii  in  eos 
Indos  ad  quos  Batavi  navigant  titulo  inven- 
tionis 11 

III.  Lusitanos  in  Indos  non  habere  ius  dominii  titulo 

donationis  Pontificiae 15     | 

IV.  Lusitanos  in  Indos  non  habere  ius  dominii  titulo  1 

belli 18     I 

k 
\ 

V.    Mare  ad  Indos  aut  ius  eo  navigandi  non  esse  i 

proprium  Lusitanoruiii  titulo  occupationis  .     22     1 

\ 
VI.    Mare   aut   ius   navigandi   proprium   non  esse 

Lusitanorum  titulo  donationis  Pontificiae  .     45 

VII.  Mare  aut  ius  navigandi  proprium  non  esse 
Lusitanorum  titulo  praescriptionis  aut  con- 
suetudinis 47 

xiv  .1 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


i 


Introductory  Note v 

Translator's  Preface xi 

Feeedom  of  the  Sr<\s 

To  the  rulers  and  to  the  free  and  independent 
nations  of  Christendom 1 


cHirriB 


I.    By  the  Law  of  Nations  navigation  is  free  to  all 
persons  whatsoever 

11.  The  Portuguese  have  no  right  by  title  of  dis- 
covery to  sovereignty  over  the  East  Indies 
to  which  the  Dutch  make  voyages 


IIL 


IV. 


VI. 


vn. 


11 


The  Portuguese  have  no  right  of  sovereignty 
over  the  East  Indies  by  virtue  of  title  based 
on  the  Papal  Donation 15 


The  Portuguese  have  no  right  of  sovereignty 
over  the  East  Indies  by  title  of  war     . 


18 


Neither  the  Indian  Ocean  nor  the  right  of  navi- 
gation thereon  belongs  to  the  Portuguese  by 
title  of  occupation 22 

Neither  the  Sea  nor  the  right  of  navigation 
thereon  belongs  to  the  Portuguese  by  virtue 
of  title  based  on  the  Papal  Donation  .  45 

Neither  the  Sea  nor  the  right  of  navigation 
thereon  belongs  to  the  Portuguese  by  title 
of  prescription  or  custom      ....      47 


XV  CAPITA  DISSERTATIONIS 

VIII.    lure  gentium  inter  quosvis  liberam  esse  mer- 

caturam 61 

IX.    Mercaturam    cum    Indis    propriam    non   esse 

Lusitanurum  titulo  occupationis  ...     65 

X.    JVIercaturam   cum    Indis    propriam   non    esse 

Lusitanorum  titulo  donationis  Pontificiae  .     66 

XI.  INIercaturam  cum  Indis  non  esse  Lusitanorum 
propriam  iure  praescriptionis  aut  consuetu- 
dinis 67 

XII.    Nulla  aequitate  niti  Lusitanos  in  prohibendo 

commercio 69 

XIII.    Batavis  ius  commercii  Indicani,  qua  pace,  qua 

indutiis,  qua  bello  retinendum      ...     72 


Regis  Hispaniarum  litterae 


77 


CONTENTS  XV 

VIII.   By  the  Law  of  Nations  trade  is  free  to  all  per- 
sons whatsoever 61 

IX.    Trade  with  the  East  Indies  does  not  belong  to 

the  Portuguese  by  title  of  occupation  .  Go 

X.  Trade  with  the  East  Indies  does  not  belong 
to  the  Portuguese  by  virtue  of  title  based 
on  the  Papal  Donation 66 

XI.  Trade  with  the  East  Indies  does  not  belong  to 
the  Portuguese  by  title  of  prescription  or 
custom 67 

XII.    The  Portuguese  prohibition  of  trade  has  no 

foundation  in  equity 69 

XIII.  The  Dutch  must  maintain  their  right  of  trade 
with  the  East  Indies  by  peace,  by  treaty, 
or  by  war 72 

Appendix:  Two  letters  of  Philip  III,  King  of 
Spain 77 


w 


AD 

PRINCIPES 

POPVLOSQVE  LIBEROS 

ORBIS  CHRISTIANI 

Errc  est  non  minus  vetus  quam  pestilens,  quo  multi 
mortales,  ii  autem  maxime  qui  plurimum  vi  atque  opibus 
valent,  persuadent  sibi,  aut,  quod  verius  puto,  persuadere 
conantur,  iustum  atque  iniustum  non  suapte  natura,  sed 
hominum  inani  quadam  opinione  atque  consuetudine  dis- 
tingui.  Itaque  illi  et  leges  et  aequitatis  speciem  in  hoc  in- 
venta  existimant,  ut  eorum  qui  in  parendi  condicione  nati 
sunt  dissensiones  atque  tumultus  coerceantur;  ipsis  vero  qui 
in  summa  fortuna  sunt  coUocati,  ius  omne  aiunt  ex  volun- 
tate,  voluntatem  ex  utilitate  metiendam.  Hanc  autem  sen- 
tentiam  absurdam  plane  atque  naturae  contrariam  auc- 
toritatis  sibi  nonnihil  conciliasse  baud  adeo  mirum  est,  cum 
ad  morbum  communem  humani  generis,  quo  sicut  vitia  ita 
vitiorum  patrocinia  sectamur,  accesserint  adulantium  artes 
quibus  omnis  potestas  obnoxia  est. 

Sed  contra  exstiterunt  nullo  non  saeculo  viri  liberi, 
sapientes,  religiosi,  qui  falsam  hanc  persuasionem  animis 
simplicium  evellerent  ceteros  autem  eius  defensores  impu- 
dentiae  convincerent.  Deum  quippe  esse  monstrabant  con- 
ditorem  rectoremque  universi,  imprimis  autem  humanae 
naturae  parentem,  quam  ideo,  non  uti  cetera  animantia,  in 
species  diversas,  variaque  discrimina  segregasset,  sed  unius 
esse  generis,   una  etiam   appeilatioiie   vuluisset  contineri, 


TO  THE  RULERS  AND  TO  THE  FREE 

AND  INDEPENDENT  NATIONS 

OF  CHRISTENDOM 

The  delusion  is  as  old  as  it  is  detestable  with  which  many 
men,  especially  those  who  by  their  wealth  and  power  exercise 
the  greatest  influence,  persuade  themselves,  or  as  I  rather 
believe,  try  to  persuade  themselves,  that  justice  and  injustice 
are  distinguished  the  one  from  the  other  not  by  their  own 
nature,  but  in  some  fashion  merely  by  the  opinion  and  the 
custom  of  mankind.  Those  men  therefore  think  that  both 
the  laws  and  the  semblance  of  equity  were  devised  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  repressing  the  dissensions  and  rebellions  of 
those  persons  born  in  a  subordinate  position,  affirming  mean- 
while that  they  themselves,  being  placed  in  a  high  position, 
ought  to  dispense  all  justice  in  accordance  with  their  own 
good  pleasure,  and  that  their  pleasure  ought  to  be  bounded 
only  by  their  own  view  of  what  is  expedient.  This  opinion, 
absurd  and  unnatural  as  it  clearly  is,  has  gained  considerable 
currency;  but  this  should  by  no  means  occasion  surprise, 
inasmuch  as  there  has  to  be  taken  into  consideration  not  only 
the  common  frailty  of  the  human  race  by  which  we  pursue 
not  only  vices  and  their  purveyors,  but  also  the  arts  of  flat- 
terers, to  whom  power  is  always  exposed. 

Rut,  on  the  other  hand,  there  have  stood  forth  in  every 
age  independent  and  wise  and  devout  men  able  to  root  out 
this  false  doctrine  from  the  minds  of  the  simple,  and  to 
convict  its  advocates  of  shamelessness.  For  they  showed 
that  God  was  the  founder  and  ruler  of  the  universe,  and 
especially  that  being  the  Father  of  all  mankind,  He  had  not 
separated  human  beings,  as  He  had  the  rest  of  living  things, 
into  different  species  and  various  Divisions,  but  had  willed 
them  to  be  of  one  race  and  to  be  known  by  one  name ;  that 


i.fi 


2 


MARE  LIBERVM 


dedisset  insuper  originem  eandem,  similem  membroruin 
compagem,  vultus  inter  se  obverses,  sermonem  quoque  ct 
alia  communicaiidi  instrumenta,  ut  intelligerent  omnes 
naturalem  inter  se  societatem  erse  atque  cognationem.  Huic 
autem  a  se  fundatae  aut  domui  aut  civitati  summum  ilium 
principem  patremque  familias  suas  quasdam  scripsissc 
leges,  non  in  aere  aut  tabulis,  sed  in  sensibus  animisque 
singulorum,  ubi  invitis  etiam  et  aversantibus  legendae 
occurrent  his  legibus  summos  pariter  atque  infimos  teneri, 
in  has  non  plus  regibus  licere,  quam  plebi  adversus  decreta 
decurionum,  decur'onibus  contra  praesidium  edicta,  prae- 
sidibus  in  regum  ipsorum  sanctiones.  Quin  ilia  ipsa  popu- 
lorum  atque  urbium  singularum  iura  ex  illo  fonte  dimanare, 
inde  sanctimoniam  suam  atque  maiestatem  accipere. 

Sicut  autem  in  ipso  homine  alia  sunt  quae  habet  cum 
omnibus  communia,  alia  quibus  ab  altero  quisque  distin- 
guitur,  ita  earum  rerum  quas  in  usum  hominis  produxisset 
natura  alias  earn  manere  communes,  alias  cuiusque  indus- 
tria  ac  labore  proprias  fieri  voluisse,  de  utrisque  autem 
datas  leges,  ut  communibus  quidem  sine  detrimento  omnium 
omnes  uterentur,  de  ceteris  autem  quod  cuique  contigisset  eo 
contcntus  abstineret  alieno. 

Haec  si  homo  nullus  ncscire  potest  nisi  homo  esse 
desierit,  haec  si  gentes  viderunt  quibus  ad  verum  omne 
caccutientibus  sola  naturae  fax  illuxit,  quid  vos  sentire  ac 
facere  aequum  est,  principes  populique  Christiani? 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  2 

furthermore  He  had  given  them  the  same  origin,  the  same 
structural  organism,  the  ability  to  look  each  other  in  the 
face,  language  too,  and  other  means  of  communication,  m 
order  that  they  cU  might  recognize  their  natural  social  bond 
and  kmship.    They  showed  too  that  He  is  the  supreme  Lord 
and  Father  of  this  family;  and  that  for  the  household  or  the 
state  which  He  had  thus  founded.  He  had  drawn  up  certain 
laws  not  graven  on  tablets  of  bronze  or  stone  but  written  in 
the  minds  and  on  the  hearts  of  every  individual,  where 
even  the  unwilling  and  the  refractory  must  read  them. 
That  these  laws  were  binding  on  great  and  small  alike;  that 
kings  have  no  more  power  against  them  than  have  the  com- 
mon people  against  the  decrees  of  the  magistrates,  than  have 
the  magistrates  against  the  edicts  of  the  governors,  than 
have  the  governors  against  the  ordinances  of  the  kings  them- 
selves; nay  more,  that  thoi».     ery  laws  themselves  of  each 
and  every  nation  and  city  flc./  from  that  Divine  source,  and 
from  that  source  receive  their  sanctity  and  their  majesty. 

Now,  as  there  are  some  things  which  every  man  enjoys 
in  common  with  all  other  men,  and  as  there  are  other  things 
wh  "h  are  distinctly  his  and  belong  to  no  one  else,  just  so 
has  nature  wiUed  that  some  of  the  things  which  she  has 
created  for  the  use  of  mankind  remain  conunon  to  all,  and 
that  others  through  the  industry  and  labor  of  each  man  be- 
come his  own.  Laws  moreover  were  given  to  cover  both 
cases  so  that  all  men  might  use  common  property  without 
prejudice  to  any  one  else,  and  in  respect  to  other  things  so 
that  each  man  being  content  with  what  he  himself  owns 
might  refrain  from  laying  his  hands  on  the  property  of 

others. 

Now  since  no  man  can  be  ignorant  of  these  facts  unless 
he  ceases  to  be  a  man,  and  since  races  blind  to  all  truth 
except  what  they  receive  from  the  light  of  nature,  have  rec- 
ognized their  force,  what,  O  Christian  Kings  and  Nations, 
ought  you  to  think,  and  what  ought  you  to  do? 


8 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Si  quis  durum  putat  ea  a  se  exigi  quae  tarn  sancti 
nominis  professio  requirit,  cuius  minimum  est  ab  iniuriis 
abstinere,  certe  quid  sui  sit  offici  scire  quisque  potest  ex  eo 
quod  alteri  praecipit.  Nemo  est  vestrum  qui  non  palam 
edicat  rei  quemque  suae  esse  moderatorem  et  arbitrum:  qui 
non  fluminibus  locisque  publicis  cives  omnes  uti  ex  aequo  et 
promiscue  iubeat,  qui  non  commeandi  commercandique 
libertatem  omni  ope  defendat. 

Sine  his  si  parva  ilia  societas,  quam  rempublicam  vo- 
camus,  constare  non  posse  iudicatur  (et  certe  constare  non 
potest)  quamobrem  non  eadem  ilia  ad  sustinendam  totius. 
humani  generis  societatem  atque  concordiam  erunt  neces- 
saria?  Si  quis  adversus  haec  vim  faciat,  merito  indignamini, 
exempla  etiam  pro  flagiti  magnitudine  statuitis,  non  alia  de 
causa  nisi  quia  ubi  ista  passim  licent  status  imperi  tran- 
quillus  esse  non  potest.  Quod  si  rex  in  regem,  populus  in 
populum  inique  et  violente  agat,  id  noime  ad  perturbandam 
magnae  illius  civitatis  quietem  et  ad  sunimi  custodis  spectat 
iniuriam?  Hoc  interest,  quod  sicut  magistratus  minores  de 
vulgo  indicant,  vos  de  magistratibus,  ita  omnium  aliorum 
delicta  cognoscenda  vobis  et  punicnda  mandavit  rex  universi, 
vestra  excepit  sibi.  Is  autem  quamquam  suprcmam 
animadvcrsionem  sibi  reservat,  tardam,  occultam,  inevita- 
bileni,  nihiluminus  duos  a  se  iudices  dclegat  qui  rebus 
humanis  intersint.  quos  nocentium  felicissimus  non  eflfugit, 
conscientian»  cuique  suam,  et  famam  sive  existimationeni 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


8 


I 


If  any  one  thinks  it  hard  that  those  things  are  demanded 
of  him  which  the  profession  of  a  religion  so  sacred  requires, 
the  very  least  obligation  of  which  is  to  refrain  from  injustice, 
certainly  every  cue  can  know  what  his  own  duty  is  from  the 
very  demands  he  makes  of  others.  There  is  not  one  of  you 
who  does  not  openly  proclaim  that  every  man  is  entitled  to 
manage  and  dispose  of  his  own  property;  there  is  not  one 
of  you  who  does  not  insist  that  all  citizens  have  equal  and 
indiscriminate  right  to  use  rivers  and  public  places ;  not  one 
of  you  who  does  not  defend  with  all  his  might  the  freedom 
of  travel  and  of  trade. 

If  it  be  thought  that  the  small  society  which  we  call  a 
state  cannot  exist  without  the  application  of  these  principles 
(and  certainly  it  cannot),  why  will  not  those  same  principles 
be  necessary  to  uphold  the  social  structure  of  the  whole 
human  race  and  to  maintain  the  harmony  thereof?    If  any 
one  rebels  against  these  principles  of  law  and  order  you  are 
justly  indignant,  and  you  even  decree  punishments  in  pro- 
portion to  the  magnitude  of  the  offense,  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  a  government  cannot  be  tranquil  where  trespasses 
of  that  sort  are  allowed.    If  king  act  unjustly  and  violently 
against  king,  and  naHon  against  nation,  such  action  involves 
a  disturbance  of  the  jeace  of  that  universal  state,  and  con- 
stitutes a  trespass  against  the  supreme  Ruler,  does  it  not? 
There  is  however  this  difference:  just  as  the  lesser  magis- 
trates judge  the  conunon  people,  and  as  you  judge  the  magis- 
trates, so  the  King  of  the  universe  has  laid  upon  you  the 
command  to  take  cognizance  of  the  trespasses  of  all  other 
men,  and  to  punish  them;  but  He  has  reserved  for  Himself 
tlic  punishment  of  your  own  trespasses.    But  although  He 
reserves  to  hinjseif  the  final  punishment,  slow  and  unseen 
but  none  the  less  inevitable,  yet  He  appoints  to  inter\'ene  in 
human  affairs  two  judges  whom  the  luckiest  of  sinners  does 
not  escape,  nnnuly,  Conscience,  or  the  innate  estimation  of 
oneself,  and  rublie  Opinion,  or  the  estimation  of  others. 


MARE  LIBERVM 


alicnam.  Hacc  tribunalia  illis  patent  quibus  alia  praeclusa 
sunt;  ad  haec  infirmi  provocant;  in  his  vincuntur  qui  vincunt 
viribus,  qui  licentiae  modum  non  statuunt,  qui  vili  putant 
constare  quod  emitur  humano  sanguine,  qui  iniurias  iniuriis 
defendunt,  quorum  manifesta  facinora  necesse  est  et  con- 
sentiente  bonorum  iudicio  damnari,  et  sui  ipsorum  animi 
sententia  non  absolvi. 

Ad  utrumque  hoc  forum  nos  quoque  novam  causam 
afferimus;  non  hercule  de  stillicidiis  aut  tigno  iniuncto, 
quales  esse  privatorum  solent,  ac  ne  ex  eo  quidem  genere 
quod  frequens  est  nter  populos,  de  agri  iure  in  confinio 
haerentis,  de  amnis  aut  insulae  possessione;  sed  de  omni 
prope  oceano,  de  iure  navigandi,  de  libertate  commerciorum. 
Inter  nos  et  Hispanos  haec  controversa  sunt:  Sitne  immen- 
sum  et  vastum  mare  regni  unius  nee  maximi  accessio;  popu- 
lone  cuiquam  ius  sit  volentcs  populos  prohibere  ne  vendant. 
ne  permutent,  ne  denique  conimeent  inter  sese;  potueritnc 
quisquam  quod  suum  numquain  fuit  clargiri,  aut  invenire 
quod  iam  erat  alienum;  an  ius  aliquod  tribuat  manifesta 
longi  temporis  iniuria. 

In  hac  disceptatione  ipsis  oui  inter  Hispanos  pracciput 
sunt  divini  -iique  huninni  iuris  magistri  calculum  porrigimus. 
ipsius  denique  Hispaniac  proprias  leges  imploramus.  Id  si 
nihil  iuvat,  et  eos  quos  ratio  certa  convincit  eupiditas  vetat 
(lesistcre,  vcstrani  principcs  maicstatcm,  vestram  fidcm 
(iuot(ni(it  cstis  ubiquc  gentes  appellnnius. 

Non  pcrplexam.  non  intricatnni  movcnius  quaestionem. 
Non  dc  anibiguis  in  religione  capitibus,  quae  plurimuni 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


4 


1 


These  two  tribunals  are  open  to  those  who  are  debarred  from 
all  others;  to  these  the  powerless  appeal;  in  them  are  de- 
feated those  who  are  wont  to  win  by  might,  those  who  put 
no  bounds  to  their  presumption,  those  who  consider  cheap 
anything  bought  at  the  price  of  human  blood,  Ihose  who  de- 
fend injustice  by  injustice,  men  whose  wickedness  is  so  mani- 
fest that  they  must  needs  be  condemned  by  the  unanimous 
judgment  of  the  good,  and  cannot  be  cleared  before  the  bar 
of  their  own  souls. 

To  this  double  tribunal  we  bring  a  new  case.  It  is  in  very 
truth  no  petty  case  such  as  private  citizens  are  wont  to  bring 
against  heir  neighbors  about  dripping  eaves  or  party  walls; 
nor  is  .  a  case  such  as  nations  frequently  bring  against  one 
another  about  boundary  lines  or  the  possession  of  a  river  or 
an  island.  Nol  It  is  a  case  which  concerns  practically  the 
entire  expanse  of  the  high  seas,  the  right  of  navigation,  the 
freedom  of  trade  11  Between  us  and  the  Spaniards  t^e  fol- 
lowing points  are  in  dispute:  Can  the  vast,  the  bounui  ^ 
sea  be  the  appanage  of  one  kingdom  alone,  and  it  not  li.e 
greatest?  Can  any  one  nation  have  the  right  to  prevent 
other  nations  which  so  desire,  from  selling  to  one  another, 
from  bartering  with  one  another,  actually  from  communicat- 
ing with  one  another?  Can  any  nation  give  away  what  it 
never  owned,  or  discover  what  already  belonged  to  some  one 
else?  Does  a  manifest  injustice  of  long  standing  create  a 
specific  right? 

In  this  controversy  we  appeal  to  those  jurists  among  the 
Spanish  thems.^lvcs  \vho  are  especially  skilled  both  in  divine 
and  human  law;  we  actually  invoke  the  very  laws  of  Spain 
itself.  If  that  is  of  no  avail,  and  those  whom  reason  clearly 
convicts  of  wrong  are  induced  by  greed  to  maintain  that 
stand,  we  invoke  your  majesty,  ye  Princes,  your  go«Kl  faith, 
ye  Peoples,  whoever  and  wherever  ye  may  Iw. 

It  is  not  an  involved,  it  is  not  an  intricate  question  that 
I  am  raising.    It  is  not  a  question  of  ambiguous  points  of 


r 


5  MARE  LIBERVM 

habere  videntur  nbscurittatis,  quae  tantis  tarn  diu  animis 
decertata,  npud  sapientes  hoc  fere  certum  reliquerunt,  nus- 
quam  minus  inveniri  veritatem  quam  ubi  cogitur  assensus. 
Non  de  statu  nostrae  reipublicae,  et  libertate  armis  baud 
parta  sed  vindicata ;  de  qua  recte  statuere  ii  demum  possunt 
qui  iura  patria  Belgarum,  mores  avitos,  et  institutum  non 
in  leges  regn'im,  sed  ex  legibus  principatum  accurate  cog- 
noverint,  in  qua  tamen  quaestione  aequis  iudicibus  extremae 
servitutis  depulsa  necessitas,  subtilius  inquirentibus  dccreti  * 
tot  nationum  publica  auctoritas,  infensis  etiam  et  malevolis 
adversariorum  confessio  nihil  dubitandum  reliquit. 

Sed  quod  hie  proponinius  nihil  cum  istis  commune  habet, 
nullius  indiget  anxiae  disquisitionis,  non  ex  divini  codicis 
pendet  explicatione,  cuius  multa  multi  non  capiunt,  non 
ex  unius  populi  scitis  quae  ceteri  merito  ignorant. 

Lex  ilia  e  cuius  praescripto  iudicandum  est,  inventu  est 
non  difficilis,  utpote  eadem  apud  omnes;  et  facilis  intellectu, 
utpote  nata  cum  singulis,  singulorum  mentlbus  insita.  lus 
autem  quod  petimus  tale  est  quod  nee  rex  subditis  negare 
debeat,  neque  Christianus  non  Christianis.  A  natura  enim 
oritur,  quae  ex  aequo  omnium  parens  est,  in  omnes  munifica, 
cuius  imperium  in  cos  extenditur  qui  gentibus  imperant,  et 
apud  COS  sanctissimum  est  qui  in  pietate  plurimum  pro- 
feccrunt, 

Cognoscitc  banc  causam  principes!  cognoscite  populi!  si 
quid  iniquum  postulnmus,  scitis  quae  vestra  et  e  vobis  eoruni 
qui  viciniores  nobis  estis  apud  nos  semper  fuerit  auctoritas! 

*  Idccreta  (•)     ilcrnti  j-.  the  riailin(r  of  tiic  \li:V.\  .iiul  IT.'O  texts]. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  5 

theology  which  seem  to  be  wrapped  in  the  deepest  obscurity, 
which  have  been  debated  already  so  long  and  with  such  heat, 
that  wise  men  are  ahnost  convinced  that  truth  is  never  so 
rarely  found  as  when  assent  thereto  is  forced.  It  is  not  a 
question  of  the  status  of  our  government  and  of  inde- 
pendence not  won  by  arms  but  restored.  On  this  point  those 
can  reach  a  right  decision  who  have  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  ancestral  laws  and  hereditary  customs  of  the  people 
of  the  Netherlands,  and  who  have  recognized  that  their  state 
is  not  a  kingdom  illegally  founded  but  is  a  government  based 
upon  law.  In  this  matter,  however,  just  judges  no  longer 
compelled  to  subordinate  their  convictions  have  been  per- 
suaded; the  public  authority  of  many  nations  has  entirely 
satisfied  those  who  were  seeking  a  precedent;  and  the  admis- 
sions of  our  adversaries  have  left  even  the  foolish  and 
malevolent  no  room  for  doubt. 

But  what  I  here  submit  has  nothing  in  common  with  these 
matters.  It  calls  for  no  troublesome  investigation.  It  does 
not  depend  upon  an  interpretation  of  Holy  Writ  in  which 
many  people  find  many  things  they  cannot  understand,  nor 
upon  the  decrees  of  any  one  nation  of  which  the  rest  of  the 
world  very  properly  knows  nothing. 

The  law  by  which  our  case  must  be  decided  is  not  difficult 
to  find,  seeing  that  it  is  the  same  among  all  nations;  and  it 
is  easy  to  understand,  seeing  that  it  is  innate  in  every  in- 
dividual and  implanted  in  his  mind.  Moreover  the  law  to 
which  we  appeal  is  one  such  as  no  king  ought  to  deny  to 
his  subjects,  and  one  no  Christian  ought  to  refuse  to  a 
non-Christian,  For  it  is  a  law  derived  from  nature,  the 
common  mother  of  us  all.  whose  bounty  falls  on  all.  and 
whose  sway  extends  over  those  who  rule  nations,  and  which 
is  held  most  sacred  by  those  who  are  most  scrupulously  just. 

Take  cognizance  of  this  cause,  ye  Princes,  take  cog- 
nizance of  it,  ye  Nations!  If  we  are  making  an  unjust  de- 
•>>.:uvJ,  you  know  what  your  authority  and  the  authority  of 


J— 


6 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Monete,  parebimus.  Quin  si  quid  a  nobis  hac  in  re  peccatiun 
est,  iram  vestram,  odium  denique  humani  generis  non 
deprecamur.  Sin  contra  se  res  habet,  quid  vobis  censendum, 
quid  agendum  sit,  vestrae  religioni  et  aequitati  relinquimus. 

Olim  inter  populos  humaniores  summum  nefas  habebatur 
armis  eos  impetere  qui  res  suas  arbitris  permitterent,  contra 
qui  tam  aequam  condicionem  recusarent,  ii  non  ut  unius  sed 
ut  omnium  hostes  ope  communi  comprimebantur.  Itaoue 
eam  in  rem  videmus  icta  foedera,  indices  constitutes.  R  ges 
ipsi  validaeque  gentes  nihil  aeque  gloriosum  ac  magnificum 
deputabant,  quam  aliorum  coercere  insolentiam,  aliorum  in- 
firmitatem  atque  innocentiam  sublevare.  Qui  si  mos 
hodieque  obtineret,  ut  hunmni  nihil  a  se  alienum  *  homines 
arbitrarentur,  profecto  orbe  non  paulo  pacatiore  uteremur; 
refrigesceret  enim  nmltorum  audacia,  et  qui  iustitiam 
utilitatis  causa  nunc  negligunt,  iniustitiam  damno  suo 
dediscerent. 

Sed  hoc  ut  in  causa  istac  non  frustra  forte  speramus,  ita 
illud  certo  confidimus,  bene  rebus  expensis  existimaturos 
vos  omnes  imputari  nobis  non  magis  posse  pacis  moras, 
quam  belli  causas;  ac  proinde  uti  hactenus  amici  nobis  fa- 
ventes  atque  benevoli  fuistis,  ita  vos  aut  etiam  magis  in 
posterum  fore,  quo  nihil  optatius  iis  potest  contingere  qui 
priniam  partem  felicitatis  putant  bene  faccrc,  alteram  bene 
audire. 


*  K'f.    I'l  rcnoe,   Ilnutuntiinorunienos   *7|. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


6 


k 


1 


'J 
I 


those  of  you  who  are  our  nearer  neighbors  has  always  been 
so  far  as  we  are  concerned.  Caution  us,  we  will  obey. 
Verily,  if  we  have  done  any  wrong  in  this  our  cause,  we  will 
not  deprecate  yoiu"  wrath,  nor  even  the  hatred  of  the  human 
race.  But  if  we  are  right,  we  leave  to  your  sense  of  right- 
eousness and  of  fairness  what  you  ought  to  think  about  this 
matter  and  what  course  of  action  you  ought  to  pursue. 

In  ancient  times  among  the  more  civilized  peoples  it  was 
held  to  be  the  greatest  of  all  crimes  to  make  war  upon  those 
who  were  willing  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  settlement  of 
their  difficulties;  but  against  those  who  declined  so  fair  an 
offer  all  others  turned,  and  with  their  combined  resources 
overwhelmed  them,  not  as  enemies  of  any  one  nation,  but 
as  enemies  of  them  all  alike.  So  for  this  very  object  we  see 
that  treaties  are  made  and  arbiters  appointed.  Kings  them- 
selves and  powerful  nations  used  to  think  that  nothing  was 
so  chivalrous  or  so  noble  as  to  coerce  the  insolent  and  to 
help  the  weak  and  innocent. 

If  today  the  custom  held  of  considering  that  everything 
pertaining  to  mankind  pertained  also  to  one's  self,  we  should 
surely  live  in  a  much  more  peaceable  world.  For  the  pre- 
sumptuousness  of  many  would  abate,  and  those  who  now 
neglect  justice  on  the  pretext  of  expediency  would  unlearn 
the  lesson  of  injustice  at  tl.eir  own  expense. 

We  have  felt  that  perhaps  we  were  not  entertaining  a 
foolish  hope  for  our  cause.  At  all  events  we  are  confident 
that  you  will  all  recognize  after  duly  weighing  the  Tacts  in 
the  case  that  the  delays  to  peace  can  no  more  be  laid  to  our 
charge  than  can  the  causes  of  war;  and  as  hitherto  you  have 
been  indulgent,  even  favorably  disposed  to  us,  we  feel  sure 
that  you  will  not  only  remain  in  this  mind,  but  be  even  more 
friendly  to  us  in  the  future.  Nothing  more  to  be  desired 
than  this  can  come  to  men  who  think  that  the  first  condi- 
tion of  happiness  is  good  deeds;  the  second,  good  repute. 


CAPVT  I 

lure  gentium  quibusvis  ad  quosvis 
libcram  esse  navigationem 

Propositum  est  nobis  breviter  ac  dilucide  demonstrare  ius 
esse  Batavis,  hoc  est,  Ordinum  Foederatorum  Belgico-Ger- 
inaniae  subditis  ad  Indos,  ita  uti  navigant  navigare,  cumque 
ipsis  commercia  colere.  Fundanientum  strueinus  banc  iuris 
gentium,  quod  priniarium  vocant  regulam  certissimam,  cuius 
perspicua  atque  iininutabilis  est  ratio;  licere  cuivis  genti 
quamvis  alteram  adire,  cumque  ea  negotiari. 

Deus  hoc  ipse  pe  •  naturam  loquitur,  cum  ea  cuncta  qui- 
bus  vita  indiget,  omnibus  locis  suppeditari  a  natura  non  vult : 
artibus  etiam  aliis  alias  gentes  dat  excellere.  Quo  ista,  nisi 
quod  voluit  mutua  egestate  et  copia  humanas  foveri  amicitias, 
ne  singuli  se  putantes  sibi  ipsis  sufficere,  hoc  ipso  redderentur 
insociabiles?  Nunc  factum  est  ut  gens  altera  altcrius  sup- 
pleret  inopiam,  divinae  iustitiae  instituto,  ut  eo  modo  (sicut 
Plinius  dioit ' )  quod  genitum  esset  uspiam,  apud  omnes 
natun:  videretur.     Poetas  itaque  canentes  audimus: 


Xec  vero  tcrrae  ferre  ovincs  omnia  possunt* 


Item: 


el  quae  scquuntur.' 


Excudcnt  alii. 


'  Pnnejnriciis  ^i),  3:  qiiotl  genitum  csset  usquam,  id  apud  omnes  natura  esse 
videtur. 

'  \'cr(ril,  ("lonrjjlea   II,   IW. 
•  Vcr(ril,   Aencis    VI,   t»n-8J3. 


CHAPTER  I 


■31 


By  the  Law  of  Nations  navigation  is  free  to  all  persons 

whatsoever 

My  intention  is  to  demonstrate  briefly  and  clearly  that 
the  Dutch — that  is  to  say,  the  subjects  of  the  United 
Netherlands — have  the  right  to  sail  to  the  East  Indies,  as 
they  are  now  doing,  and  to  engage  in  trade  with  the  people 
there.  I  shall  base  my  argument  on  the  following  most 
specific  and  unimpeachable  axiom  of  the  Law  of  Nations, 
called  a  primary  rule  or  first  principle,  the  spirit  oi  which 
is  self-evident  and  immutable,  to  wit:  Every  nation  is  free 
to  travel  to  every  other  nation,  and  to  trade  with  it. 

God  Himself  says  this  speaking  through  the  voice  of 
nature;  and  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  His  will  to  have  Nature 
supply  every  place  with  all  the  necessaries  of  life,  He  ordains 
that  some  nations  excel  in  one  art  and  others  in  another. 
^Vhy  is  this  His  will,  except  it  be  that  He  wished  human 
friendships  to  be  engendered  by  mutual  needs  and  resources, 
lest  individuals  d  .ming  themselves  entirely  sufficient  unto 
themselves  should  for  that  very  reason  be  rendered  unso- 
ciable? So  by  the  decree  of  divine  justice  it  was  brought 
about  that  one  people  should  supply  the  needs  of  another, 
in  order,  as  Pliny  the  Roman  writer  says,'  that  in  this  way, 
whatever  has  been  produced  anywhere  should  seem  to  have 
been  destined  for  all.    Vergil  also  sings  in  this  wise : 

"  Xot  evert/  plant  on  every  soil  will  grow,"  ^ 
and  in  another  place : 

"  Let  others  better  mould  the  running  mass 
Of  metals,"  etc' 

'  Panepyric  J9,  i. 

"  Cforgiis    II,    109    rnrydrn's   translation.    II,    IJl]. 
'  Atii.ii!    VI,    «iT-'iV>,    j  nryilcir^    tr;i!V-|;)ti.m,    VI,    1  lf>!<-l!fi?)}. 

7 


f 


8 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Hoc  igitur  qui  tollunt,  illam  laudatissimam  tollunt  humani 
generis  societateni,  tollunt  niutuas  benefaciendi  occasiones, 
naturani  denique  ipsani  violant.  Nam  et  ille  quern  Deus 
terris  circumfudit  Oceanus,  undique  et  undique  versus  navi- 
gabilis,  et  ventoriun  stati  aut  extraordinarii  flatus,  non  ab 
eadem  semper,  et  a  nulla  non  aliquando  regione  spirantes, 
nonne  significant  satis  concessum  a  natura  cunctis  gentibus 
ad  cunctas  aditum?  Hoc  Seneca'  sumnmm  Naturae  bene- 
ficium  putat,  quod  et  vento  gentes  locis  dissipatas  miscuit, 
et  sua  omnia  in  regiones  ita  descripsit,  ut  necessarium  morta- 
libus  esset  inter  ipsos  commercium.  Hoc  igitur  ius  ad 
cunctas  gentes  aequaliter  pertinet:  quod  clarissimi  luriscon- 
sulti'  eo  usque  producunt,  ut  negent  uUam  rempublicam  aut 
Principem  prohibere  in  universum  posse,  quo  minus  alii  ad 
subditos  suos  accedant,  et  cum  illis  negotientur.  Hinc  ius 
descendit  hospitale  sanctissimum :  hinc  querelae: 

Quod  genus  hoc  hominum?  quaeve  hunc  tam 

harbara  morem 
Permittit  patria?  hospitio  prohibemur  harenae.' 

Et  alibi 

litusque  rogamus 

Innocuiivi  et  cunctis  undamque  auramque  patentem.* 

Et  scimus  bella  quaedam  ex  hac  causa  coepisse,  ut  Me- 


'  Nafuralcs  Quaestiones  III,  IV. 

'  Instifufes  II,  1  (De  reruin  dhisioiip,  §  1);  Diprsf  I,  8,  4  (eod.  tit.,  I.. 
Kemo  ijcitur);  cf.  Gentilis,  De  jure  belli  I,  19;  cf.  Code  IV,  63,  4  (De  coui- 
merciis,  L.  Mercafores). 

'  V-rgil.    Aeneis   I.  539-S40. 

'  Vergil,   Aeneis   VII,  2.'9-230. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


8 


-t 


Those  therefore  who  deny  this  law,  destroy  this  most  praise- 
worthy bond  of  human  fellowship,  remove  the  opportunities 
for  doing  mutual  service,  in  a  word  do  violence  to  Nature 
herself.  For  do  not  the  ocean,  navigable  in  every  direction 
with  which  God  has  encompassed  all  the  earth,  and  the  regu- 
lar and  the  occasional  winds  which  blow  now  from  one 
quarter  and  now  from  another,  offer  sufficient  proof  that 
Nature  has  given  to  all  peoples  a  right  of  access  to  all  other 
peoples?  Seneca'  thinks  this  is  Nature's  greatest  service, 
that  by  the  wind  she  united  the  widely  scattered  peoples, 
and  yet  did  so  distribute  all  her  products  over  the  earth  that 
commercial  intercourse  was  a  necessity  to  mankind.  There- 
fore this  right  belongs  equally  to  all  nations.  Indeed  the 
most  famous  jurists  '  extend  its  application  so  far  as  to  deny 
that  any  state  or  any  ruler  can  debar  foreigners  from  having 
access  to  their  subjects  and  trading  with  them.  Hence  is 
derived  that  law  of  hospitality  which  is  of  the  highest  sanc- 
tity; hence  the  complaint  of  the  poet  Vergil: 

"  What  men,  what  monsters,  what  inhuman  race. 
What  laws,  what  barbarous  customs  of  the  place. 
Shut  up  a  desert  shore  to  drowning  men. 
And  drive  us  to  the  cruel  seas  again."  ' 

And: 

"  To  beg  what  you  without  ifoui   want  mat/  spare — 
The  common  water,  and  the  common  air."* 

We  know  that  certain  wars  have  arisen  over  this  very  matter; 
such  for  example  as  the  war  of  the  Megarians  against  the 

'Natural   Questions   III,   IV. 

'Institutes  II,  I;  Digest  I,  S,  4;  cf.  Gcntilis,  De  jure  belli  I,  19j  cf.  Caie 
IV.  63,  4  [Grotius  refers  particularly  to  his  famous  predecessor  All)ericus 
Genlilis  (155.'-lti0ft),  an  Italian  who  came  to  England  and  was  appointed 
to  the  chair  of  Regius  Professor  of  Civil  Law  at  Oxford.  He  published  his  Ue 
Jure  IJelli  in  1588]. 

'Aeiieid  I,  539-JvO  [Dryden's  translation,  1,  7(!0-"ti3]. 

•.\cr.cia   Vii,  :>d-2i\i   [Dryden's   tran.latioii,   VU,  -313-314]. 


9 


MARE  LIBERVM 


garensibus  in  Athenienses,'  Bononiensibus  in  Venetos,"  Cas- 
tellanis  etiam  in  Americanos  has  iustas  potuisse  belli  causas 
esse,  et  ceteris  probabiliores  Victoria  putat,'  si  peregrinari 
et  degere  apud  illos  prohiberentur,  si  arcerentur  a  partici- 
patione  earum  rerum  quae  iure  gentium  aut  moribus  com- 
munia  sunt,  si  denique  ad  commercia  non  admitterentur. 

Cui  simile  est  quod  in  miosis*  historia  et.  inde  apud 
Augustinum  legimus,"  iusta  bella  Israelites  tra  Amor- 
rhaeos  gessisse,  quia  innoxius  transitus  denegabatiu-;  qui 
IVRE  HVMANAE  SOCIETATIS  aequissimo  patere 
debebat.  Et  hoc  nomine  Hercules  Orchomeniorum,  Graeci 
sub  Agamemnone  Mysorum  Regi  arma  intulerunt,"  quasi 
libera  essent  naturaliter  itinera,  ut  Baldus  dixit/    Accusan- 

•Dicdorus   Slculus  XI;   Plutarch,  Pericles  XXIX,  4. 

*  Sigonius,  De  regno  Italiae. 

•Victoria,  De  Indis  II,  n.  1-7;  Covarnivias,  in  c.  Peccutiim,  §  9,  n.  4,  ibi 
Quinta. 

*  Numbers  XXI,  21-26. 

*  Augustinus,  Locutionum  IV  (de  Numeris),  44;  Et  Estius,  c.  ult.  23,  4,  2. 

*  Sophocles,   Trachiniae. 

*  Baldu-   de   Ubaldis,  Consiliu  III,  293. 


PI 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


9 


Athenians/  and  that  of  the  Bolognese  against  the  Venetians.' 
Again,  Victoria "  holds  that  the  Spar.!ards  could  have  shown 
just  reasons  for  making  war  upon  the  Aztecs  and  the  In- 
dians in  America,  more  plausible  reasons  certainly  than 
were  alleged,  if  they  really  were  prevented  from  traveling 
or  sojourning  among  those  peoples,  and  were  denied  the 
right  to  share  in  those  things  which  by  the  Law  of  Nations  or 
by  Custom  are  common  to  all,  and  finally  if  they  were  de- 
barred from  trade. 

We  read  of  a  similar  case  in  the  history  of  Moses,*  which 
we  find  mentioned  also  in  the  writings  of  Augustine,'  where 
the  Israelites  justly  smote  with  the  edge  of  the  sword  the 
Amorites  because  they  had  denied  the  Israelites  an  innocent 
passage  through  their  territory,  a  right  which  according  to 
the  Law  of  Human  Society  ought  in  all  justice  to  have  been 
allowed.  In  defense  of  this  principle  Hercuks  attacked  the 
king  of  Orchomenus  in  Boeotia;  and  the  Greeks  under  their 
leader  Agamemnon  waged  war  against  the  king  of  Mysia '  on 
the  ground  that,  as  Baldus  ^  has  said,  high  roads  were  free 

•Diodorus  Siculus  XI;  Plutarch,  Pericles  XXIX,  4.  [The  Athenian  de- 
cree prohibiting  the  Megarians  from  trading  with  Athens  or  any  part  of  the 
Athenian  Empire  was  one  of  the  leading  causes  of  the   Peloponnes'an  War.] 

•Carlo  Sigonio  [(1S23-I561),  an  Italian  humanist,  in  his  worlt]  On  the 
Kingdom  of  Italy. 

•Victoria,  De  Indis  II,  n.  1-7;  Covarnivias,  in  c.  Peccatum,  §  9,  n.  4, 
ibl  Quinta  [Fra  xiscus  de  Victoria  (1480-1546),  the  famous  Spanish  Scholastic, 
a  Dominican,  and  Professor  of  Theology  at  Salamanca  from  1531  until  his 
death.  His  thirteen  Relectiones  (De  Indis  is  no.  V)  were  published  ('  vitiosa  et 
corrupta')  in  1557  after  his  death;  the  1686  Cologne  edition  is  held  to  be  the 
best. 

Diego  Covarruvias  (1512-1577),  styled  the  Bartolo  of  Spain.  He  should 
probably  be  credited  with  formulating  the  reform  decrees  of  the  Council  of 
Trent.    The  5  vol.  Antwerp  1762  edition  of  his  works  is  the  best.] 

•  Numbers   XXI,   21-26. 

•Locutionum  IV  (on  Numbers),  44;  Estius,  c.  ult.  23,  4,  2  (Estius  (?  1613) 
was  a  Dutch  commentator  en  the  Epistles  of  St  Paul  and  on  the  works  of  St 
Augustine]. 

•  [Grotius  refers  to  the  Traehiniae  of  Sophocles,  but  probably  from  memory, 
for  there  is  no  such   reference  in   that   play.] 

'  Baldus  de  Ubaldis,  ConsiUa  III,  293  [Baldus  (1327-1406)  was  a  pupU  of 
the  great  Bartolus], 


10 


JklARE  LIBERVM 


turque  a  Germanis  apud  Taciturn '  Romani,  quod  colloquia 
congressusque  gentium  arcerent,  fluminaque  et  terras  ct 
coelum  quodam  modo  ipsum  clauderent.  Nee  uUus  titulus 
Christianis  quondam  in  Saracenos  magis  placuit,  quam  quod 
per  illos  terrae  ludaeae  aditu  arcerentur." 

Sequitur  ex  sententia  Lusitanos  ctiamsi  domini  essent 
earum  regionum  ad  quas  Batavi  proficiscuntur,  iniuriani 
tamen  f aeturos  si  aditum  Batavis  et  mercatum  praecluderent. 

Quanto  igitur  iniquius  est  volentes  aliquos  a  volentiuni 
populorum  commercio  secludi,  illoruni  opera  quorum  in 
potestate  nee  populi  isti  sunt,  nee  illud  ipsuni,  qua  iter  est, 
quando  latrones  etiam  et  piratas  non  alio  magis  nomine 
detestamur,  quam  quod  illi  hoininuni  inter  se  commeatus 
obsident  atque  infestant? 


'  Toritus,  Historinc   IV,  64. 

»  AmlrcBs  Aliiatus,  Comiiicntnria  VII,  130;  Covarruvias  in  c.    Peccatum,  p. 
9  §  9;  Bartolus  on  Code  I,  11   (He  pagnnis,  L.  1). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


10 


by  nature.  Again,  as  we  read  in  Tacitus,'  the  Germans 
accused  the  Romans  of  '  preventing  all  intercourse  between 
them  and  of  closing  up  to  them  the  rivers  and  roads,  and 
almost  the  very  air  of  he'- cu  .  When  in  days  gone  by  the 
Christians  made  crusad-^  s  aj,^'anst  tt^  S.  lacens,  no  other  pre- 
text was  so  welcome  or  i  i  husible  a  ^hat  they  were  denied 
by  the  infidels  free  acces-  t(  ti-e  llolj  Land.^ 

It  follows  therefore  that  tiic  Tortuguese,  even  if  they 
had  been  sovereigns  in  those  parts  to  which  the  Dutch  make 
voyages,  would  nevertheless  be  doing  them  an  injury  if 
they  should  forbid  them  access  to  those  places  and  from 
trading  there. 

Is  it  not  then  an  incalculably  greater  injury  for  nations 
which  desire  reciprocal  conmiercial  relations  to  be  debarred 
therefrom  by  the  acts  of  those  who  are  sovereigns  neither  of 
the  nations  interested,  nor  of  the  element  over  which  their 
connecting  high  road  runs  ?  Is  not  that  the  very  cause  which 
for  the  most  part  prompts  us  to  execrate  robbers  and  pirates, 
namely,  that  they  beset  and  infest  our  trade  routes? 

'  Histories  IV,  6+  (In  connection  with  the  revolt  of  Civilis]. 

•Andrea  Alcinti,  Comnicntaria  VH,  KIO;  CovBrruvias  in  c.  Peccatum,  p.  2 
§  9;  Hartohis  on  Code  I.  II  [AUiati  (1  in.'-l.'.JO)  was  niir.le  Comes  l>alatinus  l.y 
live  I'iniM-ror  Charles  V,  unil  ofTerecl  a  Cardinal's  hat  liy  Poi>e  Paul  HI.  *'"''> 
he  refused,  but  he  did  betonie  a  Prolonotarius  Apostolicus]. 


4 


CAPVT  II 

Luntanoa  nullum  habere  ius  dominii  in  eos 

Indos  ad  quos  Batavi  navigant 

titulo  inventionis 

Non  esse  autem  Lusitanos  earum  partiuni  dominos  ad 
quas  Batavi  accedunt,  puta  lavae,  Taprobanae,  partis 
maximae  JNIoluccaruin,  certissimo  argumento  coUigimus, 
quia  dominus  nemo  est  eius  rei  quam  nee  ipse  umquam  nee 
alter  ipsius  nomine  possedit.  Habent  insulae  istae  quas 
dicinms  et  semper  habuerunt  suos  reges,  suam  rempublican, 
suas  leg'^s,  sua  iura;  Lusitanis  mercatus,  ut  aliis  gentibus 
conceditur;  itaque  et  tributa  cum  pendunt,  et  ius  mercandi 
a  principibus  exorant,  dominos  se  non  esse,  sed  ut  externos 
advenire  satis  testantur;  ne  habitant  quidem  nisi  precario. 
Et  quamquam  ad  dominium  titulus  non  sufficiat,  quia  et 
possessio  requiritur,  cum  aliud  sit  rem  habere,  aliud  ius  ad 
rtni  consequendam,  tamen  ne  titulum  quidem  dominii  in 
eas  partes  Lusitanis  ulium  esse  aftirmo,  quem  non  ipsis 
eripuerit  Doctoruni,  et  quidem  Hispanorum  sententia. 

Prinmm  si  dicent  inventionis  praemio  eas  terras  sibi 
ccssisse,  nee  ius,  nee  verum  dicent.  Invenire  enim  non  ilhid 
est  oculis  usurpare,  sed  apprthendere,  ut  Gordiani  ep.jtohi 


II 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Portuguese  have  no  right  by  title  of  discovery  to 

sovereignty  over  the  East  Indies  to  lahich  the 

Dutch  make  voyages 

The  Portuguese  are  not  sovereigns  of  those  parts  of  the 
East  Indies  to  which  the  Dutch  sail,  that  is  to  say,  Java, 
Ceylon,*  and  many  of  the  ^loluccas.    This  I  prove  by  the 
incontrovertible  argument  that  no  one  is  sovereign  of  a 
thing  which  he  himself  has  never  possessed,  and  which  no 
one  else  has  ever  held  in  his  name.    These  islands  of  which 
we  speak,  now  have  and  always  have  had  their  own  kings, 
their  own  government,  their  own  laws,  and  their  own  legal 
systems.     The  inhabitants  allow  the  Portuguese  to  tiade 
with  them,  just  as  they  allow  other  nations  the  same  privi- 
lege.   Therefore,  inasmuch  as  the  Portuguese  pay  tolls,  and 
obtain  leave  to  traue  from  the  rulers  there,  they  thereby 
give  sufficient  proof  that  they  do  not  go  there  as  sovereigns 
but  as  foreigners.     Indeed  they  only  reside  there  on  suf- 
france.    And  although  the  title  to  sovereignty  is  not  suffi- 
cient, inasmuch  as  possession  is  a  prerequisite — for  having 
a  thing  is  quite  different  from  having  the  right  to  acquire 
it— nevertheless  I  affirm  that  in  those  places  the  Portuguese 
have  no  title  at  all  to  sovereignty  which  is  not  denied  them 
liy  the  opinion  of  learned  men,  even  of  the  Spaniards. 

First  of  all,  if  they  say  that  those  lands  have  come  under 
their  jurisdiction  as  the  reward  of  discovery,  they  lie, 
both  in  law  and  in  fact.  For  to  discover  a  thing  is  nr*  only 
to  seize  it  with  the  eyes  but  to  take  real  possession  thereof, 

*  ITnprohnnp  \\n%  the  ancient  name  of  Ceylon.  Milton  speaks  *  it  In 
I'nradise  ItrgHinrd  IV,  75i 

"  Aiit!  uttiK'Sl  Imllsn  l-k  Tspr"^---'-''"! 
11 


12 


aiARE  LIBERV.^1 


ostcnditur; '  unde  Grainniatici '  invenire  ft  oupare  pro 
verbis  ponunt  idem  significantibus;  et  tota  I.atiiiitas  quod 
adepti  sumus,  id  demum  invenisse  nos  dioit,  cui  opposituiii 
est  perdere.  Quin  et  ipsa  naturalis  ratio,  ct  leguin  diserta 
verba,  et  eruditiorurn  interpretatio '  nianifestc  ostendit,  ad 
titulum  doniinii  paranduni  eai»  demum  sufficcre  inven- 
tionem  quae  eum  possessione  coniuncta  est,  ubi  scilicet  res 
mobiles  apprehenduntur,  aut  immobiles  terminis  atque  cus- 
todia  sepiuntur;  *  quod  in  hac  specie  dici  nullo  modo  potest. 
Nam  praesidia  illic  Lusitani  nulla  hai.'pnt.  Quid  quod  ne 
reperisse  quidem  Indiam  ullo  modo  dici  possunt  Lusitani, 
(luae  tot  a  saeculis  fuerat  celeberrima.  lam  ab  Ilorati 
tempore: " 

Imphjcr  cxtrcmos  currit  mcrcator  ad  Indos 
Per  marc  paupcricm  fugicns. 


Taprobanes  pleraquc  quam  exactc  nobis  Romani  dcscrip- 
lam  vero  et  ceteras  insulas  ante  Lusitanos  noii 


sere?' 


'Code  VIII,  40.  13  (De  ndciussorihus,  L.  Si  narsafrorHm). 

"Nonius  Marcrlliis,  l)c  viiriii  .siKnifiriitiom'  scriiionum,  in  vrrbo  'ofcupnrc' 
(p.  S6:,  Lin<lMiy)j  cf.  roiiiiiiiius,  Commeiitirii  juris  civilis  III,  3;  cf.  Don^•lln^ 
(.'(iiniiHTilarii  dc  jure  civilj   IV,  1(1. 

•  Institutrs  II,  I.  13  (I)e  rrrurii  divisiono,  §  Illiid  quarsitum  est). 

'  Digest  XM,  ■•',  3  (Df  adquircnda  posscssionp,  §  Ncratius). 

'  Kpislulne    I,    I,    It- 15. 

'Plinj,  Naturalis  lii.^toria  \  I,  il. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


12 


as  Gordian '  points  out  in  one  of  his  letters.  For  that 
reason  the  Grammarians  '  give  the  same  signification  to  the 
expressions  '  to  find  '  and  '  to  occupy  ' ;  and  all  Latinity  ap- 
plies the  phrase  '  we  ha\'e  found '  only  to  the  thing  which 
'  we  have  seized ' ;  and  the  opposite  of  this  is  '  to  lose '. 
However,  natural  reason  itself,  the  precise  words  of  the 
law,  and  the  interpretation  of  the  more  learned  men '  all 
show  clearly  that  the  act  of  discovery  is  sufficient  to  give 
a  clear  title  of  sovereignty  only  when  it  is  accompanied  by 
actual  possession.  And  this  only  applies  of  course  to  mov- 
ables or  to  such  immovables  as  are  actually  inclosed  within 
fixed  bounds  and  guarded.*  No  such  claim  can  be  estab- 
lished in  the  present  case,  because  the  Portuguese  maintain 
no  garrisons  in  those  regions.  Neither  can  the  Portuguese 
by  any  possible  means  claim  to  have  discovered  India,  a 
country  which  was  famous  centuries  and  centuries  ago!  It 
was  already  known  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  emperor 
Augustus  as  the  following  quotation  from  Horace  shows: 

"  That  Korst  of  evik,  poverti/,  to  shun 
Dauntless  tfirouc/h  seas,  and  rocks,  and  fires  ijou  run 
To  furthest  Ind.'" 

And  have  not  the  Romans  described  for  us  in  the  most 
exact  way  the  greater  part  of  Ceylon  ? "  And  as  far  as  the 
other   islands   are   concerned,    not    only   the    neighboring 

'Code  VIII.  40,  13  [Prol)al)ly  Knliiiis  Claudius  Gordinnus  Fulgcntius  (*68- 
i33),  n  nenedictinr  monk,  onr  of  the  I.ntin  Knthcrs]. 

'  Nonius  Mnroelliis,  On  the  variinis  siftnifirntions  of  sporch,  under  the  word 
'ixciJiinrc';  cf.  Connan,  Cominmtari.'s  on  the  civil  law  III,  :i;  Oonpllus  fDoneniil. 
Ciinimnfaries  on  the  civil  hw  IV.  10.  (Kran(,tiis  de  Connan  (1508-1551),  n 
I  rcmli  JiirisconMiU,  n  pupil  of  Alciatij  Hufnies  Iloneaii  (15:7-1591)  a  famous 
jurisconsult,  who  wrote  many  volumes  of  com.nentarics  on  the  Dipest  and  tlie 
<\>dc.I 

Institutes  II,  1,   1:1. 

'  Dipv.t  XI.I,  i?,  X 

'I.rtters  I,  1,  44-45   (Francis's  translation,  I'.nglisli   Poets  XIX,  7:61. 

'Pliny,  Natural   Hiitory,  VI,  J.'. 


13 


MARE  LIBERVM 


finitimi  tantum  Persae  et  Arabes,  sed  Europaei  etiam, 
praecipue  Veneti  noverant. 

Praeterea  inventio  nihil  iuris  tribuit,  nisi  in  ea  quae  ante 
inventionem  nullius  fuerant.'  Atqui  Indi  cum  ad  eos  Lusi- 
tani  venerunt,  etsi  partial  idololatrae,  partim  Mahumetani 
erant,  gravibusque  peccatis  involuti,  nihilominus  publice 
atque  privatim  rerum  possessionumque  suarum  dominium 
habuerunt,  quod  illis  sine  iusta  causa  eripi  non  potuit.'  Ita 
certissimis  rationibus  post  alios  auctores  niaximi  nominis 
concludit  Hispanus  Victoria:'  'Non  possunt',  inquit, 
'  Christiani  saeculares  aut  Ecclesiastici  potestate  civili  et 
principatu  privare  infideles,  eo  dumtaxat  titulo,  quia  in- 
fidelcs  sunt,  nisi  ab  eis  alia  iniuria  profecta  sit '. 

Fides  enim,  ut  recte  inquit  Thomas  *  non  toUit  ius  natu- 
rale  aut  humanum  ex  quo  dominia  profecta  sunt.  Inimo 
credere  intidcles  non  esse  rerum  suarum  dominos,  haereticum 
est:  et  res  ab  illis  possessas  illis  ob  hoc  ipsum  eripere  furtmn 
est  et  rapina,  non  minus  quam  si  idem  fiat  Christianis. 

Recte  igitur  dicit  Victoria"  non  magis  ista  ex  causa 
Hispanis  ius  in  Indos  quaesitum,  quam  Indis  fuisset  in 
Ilispanos,  si  qui  illorum  priores  in  Ilispaniam  venissent. 
X<  '^ue  vero  sunt  Indi  Orientis  anientes  et  insensati,  seel 

'  Diftfft  XLI,  1,  3  (Dc  adquircndo  rerum  dominio). 
'  C'ovnrruvins  in  r.  I'occatum  §  10,  n.  2,  ♦,  5. 

Of  potestate  rivili  I,  9. 
'Thomas  Aqiiiiins,  Stimmn   II.   II,  q.   10,  a.   12. 
•  l)e  Indis  I,  n.  4-7,  19. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


13 


I 


1 


Persians  and  Arabs,  but  even  Europeans,  particularly  the 
Venetians,  knew  them  long  before  the  Portuguese  did. 

But  in  addition  to  all  this,  discovery  per  se  gives  no 
legal  rights  over  things  unless  before  the  alleged  discovery 
they  were  res  nullius.^  Now  these  Indians  of  the  East,  on 
the  arrival  of  the  Portuguese,  although  some  of  them  were 
idolators,  and  some  Htlohammedans,  and  therefore  sunk  in 
grievous  sin,  had  none  the  less  perfect  public  and  private 
ownership  of  their  goods  and  possessions,  from  which  they 
Cculd  not  be  dispossessed  without  just  cause.^  The  Spanish 
writer  Victoria,'  following  other  writers  of  the  highest 
authority,  has  the  most  certain  warrant  for  his  conclusion 
that  Christians,  whether  of  the  laity  or  of  the  clergy,  can- 
not deprive  infidels  of  their  civil  power  and  sovereignty 
merely  on  the  ground  that  they  are  infidels,  unless  some 
other  wrong  has  been  done  by  them. 

For  religious  behef,  as  Thomas  Aquinas*  rightly  ob- 
serves, does  not  do  away  with  either  natural  or  human  law 
from  which  sovereignty  is  derived.  Surely  it  is  a  heresy 
to  believe  that  infidels  are  not  masters  of  their  own  prop- 
erty; consequently,  to  take  from  them  their  possessions  on 
account  of  their  religious  belief  is  no  less  theft  and  robbery 
than  it  would  be  in  the  case  of  Christians, 

Victoria  then  is  right  in  saying '  that  the  Spaniards  have 
no  more  legal  right  over  the  East  Indians  because  of  their 
religion,  than  the  East  Indians  would  ha-. '•  had  over  the 
Spaniards  if  they  had  happened  to  be  the  first  foreigners 
to  come  to  Spain.  Nor  are  the  East  Indians  stupid  and 
unthinking;  on  the  contrary  they  are  intelligent  and  shrewd, 


■  Diftest  XLI,  1,  3. 

'  t'ovarruvias  in  o.  Peccatum  §   10,  n.  i,  t,  5. 

'  Uc  potestate  civili   I,  9. 

*Sum.na  II.  II,  q.  10,  n.  V2  (Tliomus  Aquinas  (ir27-lJT4),  one  of  the  most 
fiunuus  of  the  Schoolmen  and  Theologians,  spoken  of  often  as  Aquila  Tlieologorum, 
and  Doctor  Anifelicus). 

'  Vv  Indis  I,  n.  4-v,  19. 


14 


MARE  LIBERVM 


ingeniosi  et  solertes,  ita  ut  ne  hinc  quidem  praetextus 
subiciendi  possit  desumi,  qui  tamen  per  se  satis  est  mani- 
festae  iniquitatis.  lam  olim  Plutarchus  np6<pa(fiv  nXtovtSiai 
fuisse dicit  f/ttepcSaat  ra  fiapfiapixa*  improbam  scilicet  alieni 
cupiditatem  hoc  sibi  velum  obtendere,  quod  barbariem 
mansuefacit.  Et  nunc  etiam  color  ille  redigendi  invitas 
gentes  ad  mores  humaniores,  qui  Graecis  olim  et  Alexandro 
usurpatus  est,  a  Theologis  omnibus,  praesertim  Hispanis,' 
improbus  atque  impius  censetur. 

•  Vosquius,  Preface  (n.  5)  to  Controversiae  illustres. 

*  [ Pluturili,  Pompeius  LXX). 


FREEDOJkl  OF  THE  SEAS 


14 


I 

.■a 


SO  that  a  pretext  for  subduing  them  on  the  ground  of  their 
character  could  not  be  sustained.  Such  a  pretext  on  its 
very  face  is  an  injustice.  Plutarch  said  long  ago  that  the 
civilizing  of  barbarians  had  been  made  the  pretext  for  ag- 
gression, which  is  to  say  that  a  greedy  longing  for  the  prop- 
erty of  another  often  hides  itself  behind  such  a  pretext. 
And  now  that  well-known  pretext  of  forcing  nations  into  a 
higher  state  of  civilization  against  their  will,  the  pretext 
once  seized  by  the  Greeks  and  by  Alexander  the  Great,*  is 
considered  by  all  theologians,  especially  those  of  Spain,'  to 
be  unjust  and  unholy. 

'  Vasquiiis,  Preface  (n.  5)  to  Controvcrsiac  illustrcs. 

•  [Cf.  Plutarch,  Of  the  Fortune  or  Virtue  of  Alexander  the  Great  I,  5]. 


CAPVT  III 

Lusitanos  in  Indos  non  habere  ius 

dominii  titulo  donationis 

Pontificiae 

Secundo  si  Pontificis  Alexandri  Sexti  divisione  utentur, 
ante  omnia  illud  attendendiim  est,  volueritne  Pontifex 
contentiones  tantum  Lusitanorum  et  Castellanorum  dirimere, 
quod  potuit  sane,  ut  lectus  inter  illos  arbiter,  sicut  et  ipsi 
Reges  iam  ante  inter  se  ea  de  re  foedera  quaedam 
pepigerant ;  *  et  hoc  si  ita  est,  cum  res  inter  alios  acta  sit,  ad 
ceteras  gentes  non  pertinebit;  an  vero  prope  singulos  mundi 
trientes  dnobus  populis  donare.  Quod  etsi  voluisset,  et 
potuisset  Pontifex,  non  tamen  continuo  sequeretur  dominos 
eorum  locorum  esse  Lusitanos,  cum  donatio  dominum  non 
faciat,  sed  secuta  traditio;=  quare  et  huic  causae  possessio 
deberet  uc^edere. 

Tum  vero  si  quis  ius  ipsum  sive  divinum  sive  humanum 
scrutari  volet,  non  autem  ex  commodo  suo  metiri,  facile 

'  Cf.  Osorium. 

•Institutes  II,  1,  40  (Dc  rerum  divisione,  §  Per  traditionem). 


IS 


I 


CHAPTER  III 

Tlie  Portuguese  Jiave  no  right  of  sovereignty  over  the 

East  Indies  by  virtue  of  title  based  on  the  Papal 

Donation 

Next,  if  the  partition  made  by  the  Pope  Alexander  VI  * 
is  to  be  used  by  the  Portuguese  as  authority  for  jurisdiction 
in  the  East  Indies,  then  before  all  things  else  two  points 
must  be  taken  into  consideration. 

First,  did  the  Pope  merely  desire  to  settle  the  disputes 
between  the  Portuguese  and  the  Spaniards? 

This  was  clearly  within  his  power,  inasmuch  as  he  had 
been  chosen  to  arbitrate  between  them,  and  in  fact  the 
kings  of  both  countries  had  previously  concluded  certain 
treaties  with  each  other  on  this  very  matter.'  Now  if  this 
be  the  case,  seeing  that  the  question  concerns  only  the 
Portuguese  and  Spaniards,  the  decision  of  the  Pope  will 
of  course  not  affect  the  other  peoples  of  the  world. 

Second,  did  the  Pope  intend  to  give  to  two  nations, 
each  one  third  of  the  whole  world? 

But  even  if  the  Pope  had  intended  and  had  had  the 
power  to  make  such  a  gift,  still  it  would  not  have  made 
the  Portuguese  sovereigns  of  those  places.  For  it  is  not  a 
donation  that  makes  a  sovereign,  it  is  the  consequent  de- 
livery of  a  thing '  and  the  subsequent  possession  thereof. 

Now,  if  any  one  will  scrutinize  either  divine  or  human 
law,  not  merely  with  a  view  to  his  own  interests,  he  will 

'  [Grotius  cites  Osorius,  but  gives  no  reference.] 
'Institutes  II,  1,  40. 

*  [The  Caml)ridge  Modern  History,  I,  ?3-2*.  has  a  pood  paragraph  upon  this 
famous   Papal   Bull   of    May    14,    1493    (moditted   June    7,    1494,   by    treaty   of 

Toriiisiilos).] 

IS 


16 


MARE  LIBERVM 


deprehendet  donationem  eiusmodi  ut  rei  alienae  nuUius  esse 
momenti.  Disputationein  de  potestate  Pontificis,  hoc  est 
Episcopi  Romanae  Ecclesiae,  hie  non  aggrediar,  nee  quic- 
quam  ponam  nisi  ex  hypothesi,  hoe  est,  quod  confitentur 
homines  inter  eos  eruditissimi,  qui  plurinium  Pontificiac 
tribuunt  auctoritati,  maxime  Hispani,  qui  cum  pro  sua  pcr- 
spicacia  facile  vident  Dominum  Christum  omne  a  se 
terrenum  imperium  abdicasse,'  nmndi  certe  totius  dominium, 
qua  homo  fuit,  non  habuisse,  et  si  habuisset,  nulHs  tamen 
argumentis  astrui  posse  ius  illud  in  Petrum,  aut  Romanani 
Ecclesiam  Vicarii  iure  translatum;  cum  aHas  etiam  certuni 
sit,  multa  Christum  habuisse  in  quae  Pontifex  non  succes- 
serit,'  intrepide  affirmarunt  (utar  ipsorum  verbis)  Pontifi- 
cem  non  esse  dominum  civilem  aut  temporalem  totius  orbis.' 
Inuno  etiam  si  quam  talem  potestatem  in  mundo  haberet, 
cam  tamen  non  recte  exerciturum,  cum  spirituali  sua 
iurisdictione  contentus  esse  debeat,  saecularibus  autem 
Principibus  earn  concedere  nulio  modo  posse.  Turn  vero 
si  quam  habeat  potestatem,  earn  habere,  ut  loquuntur  in 
ordine  ad  spirituaHa.*  Quocirca  nullam  ilH  esse  potestatem 
in  populos  infideles,  ut  qui  ad  Ecclesiam  non  pertineant." 
Vnde   sequitur  ex   sententia   Caietani  et   Victoriae  et 

•Luke  XII,  U;  John  XVIII,  36;  Victoria,  De  Indis  I,  n.  25. 

'  Victoria  XVI,  n.  27. 

'  Vasquius,  Controversiae  illustres,  c.  21;  Turn-  Cremiila  II,  c.  113;  Hugo  (n 
Dist.  XCVI,  C.  VI  (Cum  nd  vcrum);  Bcrnhardus,  De  consolatione  ad  Eugi-niuiii 
II;  Victorin,  De  Indis  I,  n.  27;  Covurruvias  in  c.  reocatum  §  9,  n.  7. 

•Matthew  XVII,  27;  XX,  26;  John  VI,  15. 

•Victoria,  De  Indis  I,  n.  2S,  30;  Covarruvias  on  I  Corinthians  V  in  fine; 
Tliomas  Aquinas,  Summa  II.  II,  q.  12,  a.  2;  Ayala,  De  Jure  I,  2,  29. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


16 


easily  apprehend  that  a  donation  of  this  kind,  dealing  with 
the  property  of  others,  is  of  no  effect.  I  shall  not  enter 
here  upon  any  discussion  as  to  the  power  of  the  Pope, 
that  is  the  Bishop  of  the  Roman  Church,  nor  shall  I  advance 
anything  bit  a  hypothesis  which  is  accepted  by  men  of  the 
greatest  erudition,  who  lay  the  greatest  stress  on  the  power 
of  the  Pope,  especially  the  Spaniards,  who  with  their  perspi- 
cacity easily  see  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  when  he  said 
"  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  "  thereby  renounced  all 
earthly  power,'  and  that  while  He  was  on  earth  as  a  man, 
He  certainly  did  not  have  dominion  over  the  whole  world, 
and  if  He  had  had  such  dominion,  still  by  no  arguments 
could  such  a  right  be  transferred  to  Peter,  or  be  transmitted 
to  the  Roman  Church  by  authority  of  the  '  Vicar  of  Christ ' ; 
indeed,  inasmuch  as  Christ  had  many  things  to  which  the 
Pope  did  not  succeed,^  it  has  been  boldly  affirmed — and  I 
shall  use  the  very  words  of  the  writers — that  the  Pope  is 
neither  civil  nor  temporal  Lord  of  the  whole  world/  On 
the  contrary,  even  if  the  Pope  did  have  any  such  power  on 
earth,  still  he  would  not  be  right  in  using  it,  because  he 
ouj^ht  to  be  satisfied  with  his  own  spiritual  jurisdiction, 
and  be  utterly  unable  to  grant  that  power  to  temporal 
princes.  So  then,  if  the  Pope  has  any  power  at  all,  he  has  it, 
as  they  say.  in  the  spiritual  realm  only.*  Therefore  he  has 
no  authority  over  infidel  nations,  for  they  do  not  belong 
to  tlie  Church.'" 

It    f  jIIows    therefore    according    to    the    opinions    of 

•  I.iikf  XII.  :*;  .Tf*n  X     ill,  36;  Victoria,  De  InUis  I,  n.  25. 
'  Victora.  3~^"1.        ^7 

•  Va-inaasv  r«ir~n-cr'- ne  illustres,  c  .'I;  Torquemada  II,  c.  113;  Hugo  on 
Dist.  X(  ..  C  ■";.: —  iiri-narti,  Adnumitory  cpistlt-  to  Pope  Eugpne  III,  hook  '2; 
\ii'tor;u.    -H-  jT«it»  ..    :.  IT;  c'ovarruvius  in  c.  Peocatum  ij  9,  n.  7. 

Mtxstam  \vn.    r-.   XX,  ii-  .lohn  VI,  15. 

'"smrriii.  Xh-  ram*  :.  i.  38,  SI;  Covarruvias  on  I  Corintliinas  V,  nt  the 
"^(!  ThaBjkr  ■vn»Mi»>.  vrMmnia  II.  II,  q.  \2,  a.  .';  Ayala,  Dc  Jure  1,  J,  39  [Best 
'«nimi   >i    KymiA  »  ui  Thr  ClusMOs  of  International  Law,  Carnejric  Institution  of 


it 


17 


MARE  LIBERVM 


potioris.  partis  tarn  Theologorum  quam  Canonistarum,*  non 
esse  idoneum  titul  im  adversiis  Indos,  vel  quia  Papa 
dederit  provincias  illas  tamquam  dominus  absolute,  vei  quia 
non  recognoscunt  dominium  Papae;  atque  adeo  ne  Sara- 
cenos  quidem  isto  titulo  ur  piom  spoliatos. 

*  Thomas  Aquinas,  Sumnu  II.  II,  q.  66,  a.  6;  Silvius,  Oe  infldcUbus  §  7; 
Innoccntiiu  on  Dccretales  Gregorii  Papae  IX,  III,  34,  8  (Ue  voto,  c.  Quod  super 
bis) ;  Victoria,  De  Indis  I,  n.  31. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


17 


Cajetan  and  Victoria  and  the  more  authoritative  of  the 
Theologians  and  writers  on  Canon  Law,'  that  there  is  no  clear 
title  against  the  East  Indians,  based  either  on  the  ground 
that  the  Pope  made  an  absolute  grant  of  those  provinces  as 
if  he  were  their  sovereign,  or  on  the  pretext  that  the  East 
Indians  do  not  recognize  his  sovereignty.  Indeed,  and  in 
truth,  it  may  be  affirmed  that  no  such  pretext  as  that  was 
ever  invoked  to  despoil  even  the  Saracens. 


'Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa  II.  II,  q.  66,  a.  8;  Silvius,  Oe  infldclibus  §  7; 
Innocent  on  the  Decretals  of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  III,  34,  8;  Victoria,  De  Indis  I, 
n.  31.  [Franciscus  Silvius,  or  Sylvius,  or  du  Bois  (1581-1649),  was  a  Belgian 
theologian.] 


CAPVT  IV 

Luaitanos  in  Indoa  non  habere  ins 
dominii  titulo  belli 

His  igitur  sublatis  cum  manifestum  sit,  quod  et  Vic- 
toria scribit,'  Hispanos  ad  terras  remotiores  illas  navigantcs 
nullum  ius  secum  attulisse  occupandi  eas  provincias,  unus 
dumtaxat  titulus  belli  restat,  qui  et  ipse  si  iustus  esset,  tamen 
ad  dominium  proficere  non  posset,  nisi  iure  praedae,  hoc 
est  post  occupationem.  Atqui  tantum  abest  ut  Lusitani  eas 
res  ocoupaverint,  ut  cum  plerisque  gentibus  quas  Batavi 
accesserunt,  bellum  eo  tempore  nullum  haberent.  Et  sic 
igitur  nullum  ius  illis  quaeri  potuit,  cum  etiam  si  quas  ah 
Indis  pertulissent  iniurias,  eas  longa  pace  et  amicis  com- 
merciis  remisissc  merito  censeantur. 

Quamquam  ne  fuit  quidem  quod  bello  obtenderent. 
Nam  qui  Barbaros  bello  persequuntur  ut  Americanos 
Ilispani,  duo  solent  praetexere,  quod  ab  illis  commercio 
arceantur,  aut  quod  doctrinam  verae  religionis  illi  nolent 
agnoscere.  Et  commercia  quidem  I^usitani  ab  Indis  im- 
petranmt,'  ut  hac  in  parte  nihil  habcant  quod  querantur. 

>De  ImlU  I,  n.  31. 

'V'asquiu.s,  Controvcrsiiae  Uluttrrs,  c.  24;  Vlclorln,  Df  Indis  II,  n,  10, 


II 


a 


CHAPTER  IV 


I 


^ 


The  Portuguese  have  no  right  of  sovereignty  over  the  East 
Indies  by  title  of  war 

Since  it  is  clear,  (as  Victoria  also  says),'  from  the  re- 
futation of  any  claim  to  title  from  the  Pope's  Donation, 
that  the  Spaniards  when  they  sailed  to  those  distant  lands 
did  not  carry  with  them  any  right  to  occupy  them  as 
provinces,  only  one  kind  of  title  remains  to  be  considered, 
namely,  that  based  upon  war.  But  even  if  this  title  could 
be  justified,  it  would  not  serve  to  establish  sover  ignty, 
except  by  right  of  conquest,  that  is  to  say,  occupation  would 
be  a  prerequisite.  But  the  Portuguese  were  as  far  as 
possible  from  occupation  of  those  lands.  They  were  not 
even  at  war  with  most  of  the  peoples  whom  the  Dutch 
visited.  So  therefore  no  legal  claim  could  be  established 
there  by  the  Portuguese,  because  even  if  they  had  suffered 
wrongs  from  the  East  Indians,  it  might  reasonably  be  con- 
sidered by  the  long  peace  and  friendly  commercial  rela- 
tions that  those  injuries  had  been  forgiven. 

Indeed  there  was  no  pretext  at  all  for  going  to  war. 
For  those  who  force  war  upon  barbarous  peoples,  as  the 
Spaniards  did  upon  the  aborigines  of  America,  commonly 
allege  one  of  two  pretexts:  either  that  they  have  been  re- 
fused the  right  to  trade,  or  that  the  barbarians  are  unwill- 
ing to  acknowledge  the  doctrines  of  the  True  Faith.  But 
as  the  Portuguese  actually  obtained  from  the  East  Indians 
the  right  to  trade,'  they  have,  on  that  score  at  least,  no 


'  I>  Indis  I,  n.  SI. 

"V««}uiu«.  Conlpoversiae  lUuslrfS,  r.  31;   VlrtnHa,  ru>  Tr,.-i!= 

18 


!0. 


MARE  LIBERVM 


19  

Alter  vero  obtentiis  nihilo  est  iiistior,  quam  ille  Graecorum  in 
Barbaros,  quo  Boethius  respexit:  ^ 

An  distant  quia  dissidentque  mores, 
Iniuatas  aciea,  et  fera  bella  movent, 

Alternisque  volunt  perire  telis? 

Non  est  iusta  satis  saevitiae  ratio. 

Ista  autem  et  Thomae  et  Concili  Toletani  et  Gregori  et 
Theologorum,  Canonistarum,  lurisprudentiumque  fere 
omnium  conclusio  est:'  Quantumcumque  fides  annuntiata 
sit  Barbaris  (nam  de  his  qui  subditi  ante  fuerunt  Christianis 
Principibus  item  de  Apostatis  alia  est  quaestio)  probabiliter 
et  sufficienter,  et  si  noluerint  eam  respicere,  non  tamen 
licere  hac  ratione  eos  bello  persequi,  et  spoliare  bonis  suis.' 
Operae  pretium  est  in  banc  rem  ipsa  Caietani  verba 
describere:*  '  Quidam ',  ait,  '  infideles  nee  de  iure  nee  de 
facto  subsunt  secundum  temporalem  iurisdictionem  Prin- 
cipibus Christianis,  ut  inveniuntur  pagani,  qui  numquani 
imperio  Romano  subditi  fuerunt,  terras  habitantes,  in  quibus 
Christianum  numquam  fuit  nomen.  Horum  namque 
domini,  quamvis  infideles,  legitimi  domini  sunt,  sive  regal! 
sive  politico  regimine  gubernantur ;  nee  sunt  propter  in- 
fidelitatem  a  dominio  suorum  privati,  cum  dominium  sit 

•  De  ronsolationc  philosopliiae  IV,  carmen  ♦,  7-10. 

■Thomas  Aqulnus,  Suinma  II.  II,  q.  10,  a.  8;  Ulst.  XLV,  C.  V  (De  ludeisl. 
('.  Ill  (Qui  sinccra);  Innocentius,  of.  note  1,  page  17;  Barfolus  on  Code  I,  II,  1 
(I)r  |)aKiinis)i  Covnrruvlus  In  r.  I'eccatum,  §  9,  10;  Ayala,  De  Jure  1,  i,  ■!». 

•  Matthew  X.  Xi. 

•  Un  Thomas  Aquinas,  ijuninia  II.  II,  q.  i,  U(i,  a.  H. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


19 


grounds  of  complaint.  Nor  is  there  any  better  justification 
for  the  other  pretext  than  the  one  alleged  by  the  Greeks 
against  the  barbarians,  to  which  Boethius  makes  the  follow- 
ing allusion: 

"  Unjust  and  cruel  wars  they  wage, 
And  haste  with  flying  darts  the  death  to  meet  or 

deal. 
No  right  nor  reason  can  they  show; 
'Tis  hut  because  their  lands  and  laws  arc  not  the 

same." ' 

Moreover  the  verdict  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  of  the  Council  of 
Toledo,  of  Gregory,  and  of  nearly  all  theologians,  canon- 
ists, and  jurists,  is  as  follows:'  However  persuasively  and 
sufficiently  the  True  Faith  has  been  preached  to  the  heathen 
— former  subjects  of  Christian  princes  or  apostates  are  quite 
another  question — if  they  are  unwilling  to  heed  it,  that  is 
not  sufficient  cause  to  justify  war  upon  them,  or  to  despoil 
them  of  their  goods.' 

It  is  worth  while  on  this  point  to  quote  the  actual  words 
of  Cajetan:*  'There  are  some  infidels  who  are  neither  in 
law  nor  in  fact  under  the  temporal  jurisdiction  of  Christian 
princes;  just  as  there  were  pagans  who  were  never  sub- 
jects of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  yet  who  inhabit  lands 
where  the  name  of  Christ  was  never  heard.  Now  their 
rulers,  though  heathen,  are  legitimate  rulers,  whether  the 
people  live  under  a  monarchical  or  a  democratic  regime. 
They  are  not  to  be  deprived  of  sovereignty  over  their  pos- 

'On  the  Consolation  of  Philosophy  IV,  4,  7-10  [H.  R.  James'  translation, 
page  194]. 

■Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa  II.  II,  q.  10,  a.  8;  Dist.  XLV,  C.  V.  C.  Ill; 
Innofrnf,  see  note  1,  page  17j  Bartolus  on  Code  I.  II,  1;  Covarruvl««  in  r. 
Pfcc«t\im,  $  9,  lOi  AyaU,  De  Jure  I,  2.  ?«. 

•  Matthew  X,  83.  " 

•On  Thomas  Aquinas,  Sunima  II.  II.  q.  4,  66,  «,  8  [Thomas  dr  Cajotan 
(1469-1534),  an  Italian  rardinal,  wrote  voluminous  rommrntaries  on  Thomas 
Aquinai,  Aristotle,  end  th'  BIblr], 


5' 
.r 


20 


MARE  LIBERVM 


ex  iure  positive,  et  infidelitas  ex  divino  lure,  quod  non  tollit 
ius  positivum,  ut  superius  in  quaestione  habitum  est.  Et 
de  his  nuUam  scio  legem  quoad  temporalia.  Contra  hos 
nullus  Rex,  nullus  Imperator,  nee  Ecclesia  Romana  potest 
movere  bellum  ad  occupandas  terras  eorum,  aut  subiciendos 
illos  temporaliter;  quia  nulla  subest  causa  iusta  belli,  cum 
lesus  Christus  Rex  Regum,  cui  data  est  potestas  in  caelo  ct 
in  terra,  miserit  ad  capiendam  possessionem  mundi,  non 
milites  armatae  militiae,  sed  sanctos  praedicatores,  sicut 
oves  inter  lupos.  Vnde  nee  in  testamento  veteri,  ubi  armata 
manu  possessio  erat  capienda,  terrae  infidelium  inductum 
lego  bellum  alicui  propter  hoc  quod  non  erant  fideles,  sed 
quia  nolebant  dare  transitimi,  vel  quia  eos  offenderant,  ut 
!Madianitae,  vel  ut  recuperarent  sua,  divina  largitate  sil)i 
concessa.  Vnde  GRAVISSIME  PECCAREMVS,  si 
fidem  Christi  lesu  per  banc  viam  ampliare  contenderemus; 
nee  essemus  LEGITIMI  DOMINI  illorum,  sed  MAGNA 
LATROCINIA  committeremus,  et  teneremur  ad  restitu- 
tionem,  utpote  INIVSTI  DEBELLATORES  AVT 
OCCVPATORES.  Mittendi  essent  ad  hos  praedicatores 
boni  viri,  qui  verbo  et  exemplo  converterent  eos  ad  Deum; 
et  non  qui  eos  opprimant,  spolient,  scandalizent,  subiciant, 
et  duplo  gehennae  filios  faciant,  more  Pharisaeorum '. 

Et  in  banc  formam  audimus  saepe  a  Senatu  in  Hispania, 
et  Theologis  praecipue  Dominicaiiis  decretum  fuisse,  sola 
vcrbi  pracdicntione  non  hello  Americanos  ad  fidem  tradu- 
cendos;  libertatem  etiam  quae  illis  eo  nomine  erepta  esset, 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


20 


sessions  because  of  their  unbelief,  since  sovere'gnty  is  a 
matter  of  positive  law,  and  unbelief  is  a  matter  of  divine 
law,  which  cannot  annul  positive  law,  as  has  been  argued 
above.  In  fact  I  know  of  no  law  against  such  unbelievers 
as  regards  their  temporal  possessions.  Against  them  no 
King,  no  Emperor,  not  even  the  Roman  Church,  can  de- 
clare war  for  the  purpose  of  occupying  their  lands,  or  of 
subjecting  them  to  temporal  sway.  For  there  is  no  just 
cause  for  war,  since  Jesus  Christ  th  King  of  Kings,  to 
whom  all  power  was  given  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  sent  out 
for  the  conquest  of  the  world  not  armed  soldiers,  but  holy 
disciples,  "  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves."  Nor  do  I 
read  in  the  Old  Testament,  when  possession  had  to  be 
obtained  by  force  of  arms,  that  the  Israelites  waged  war 
on  any  heathen  land  because  of  the  unbelief  of  its  inhabi- 
tants; but  it  was  because  the  heathen  refused  them  the  right 
of  innocent  passage,  or  attacked  them,  as  the  ISIidianites 
did;  or  it  was  to  recover  the  possessions  which  had  been 
bestowed  upon  them  by  divine  bounty.  Wherefore  we 
should  be  most  miserable  sinners  if  we  should  attempt  to 
extend  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  by  such  means.  Nor 
should  we  be  their  lawful  rulers,  but,  on  the  contrary,  we 
should  be  committing  great  robberies,  and  be  compelled  to 
make  restitution  as  unjust  conquerors  and  invaders.  There 
must  be  sent  to  them  as  preachers,  good  men  to  convert 
them  to  God  by  their  teaching  and  example;  not  men  who 
will  oppress  them,  despoil  them,  subdue  and  proselytize 
them,  and  "  make  them  twofold  more  the  children  of  hell 
than  themselves,"  *  after  the  manner  of  the  Pharisees  '. 

Indeed  I  have  often  heard  that  it  has  been  decreed  by 
the  Council  of  Spain,  and  by  the  Churchmen,  especially  the 
Dominicans,  that  the  Americans  (Aztecs  and  Indians) 
should  be  converted  to  the  Faith  by  the  preaching  of  the 
Word  alone,  and  not  by  war,  and  even  that  their  liberty  of 
■-m         'M-ittiK^w  xxm.  15. 


21 


MARE  LIBERVM 


restitui  debere,  quod  a  Paulo  tertio  Pontifice,  et  Carolo  V 
Imperatore  Hispaniarum  Rege  comprobatum  dicitur. 

Omittimus  iam  Lusitanos  in  plerisque  partibus  religionetn 
nihil  promovere,  ne  operam  quidem  dare,  cum  soli  lucro 
inrigilent.  Immo  et  illud  ibi  verum  esse,  quod  de  Hispanis 
in  America  Hispanus  scripsit,  non  miracula,  non  signa 
audiri,  non  exempla  vitae  religiosae,  quae  ad  eandem  fidem 
alios  possent  impellere,  sed  multa  scandala,  multa  facinora, 
multas  in;  'ietates. 

Cfcudre  cum  et  possessio  et  titulus  deficiat  possessionis, 
neque  res  dicionesque  Indorum  pro  talibus  haberi  debeant 
quasi  nuUius  ante  fuissent,  neque  cum  illorum  essent,  ab 
aliis  recte  acquiri  potuerint,  sequitur  Indorum  populos,  de 
quibus  nos  loquimur,  Lusitanorum  proprios  non  esse,  sed 
liberos,  et  sui  iuris;  de  quo  ipsi  doctores  Hispani  non 
dubitant.' 


>  Victoria,  De  Indis  II,  I. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


21 


which  they  had  been  robbed  in  the  name  of  religion  should 
be  restored.  This  policy  is  said  to  have  received  the  approval 
of  Pope  Paul  III,  and  of  Emperor  Charles  V,  King  of  the 
Spains. 

I  pass  over  the  fact  that  the  Portuguese  in  most  places 
do  not  further  the  extension  of  the  faith,  or  indeed,  pay 
any  attention  to  it  at  all,  since  they  are  alive  only  to  the 
acquisition  of  wealth.  Nay,  the  very  thing  that  is  true  of 
them,  is  the  very  thing  which  has  been  written  of  the  Span- 
iards in  America  by  a  Spaniard,  namely,  that  nothing  is 
heard  of  miracles  or  wonders  or  examples  of  devout  and 
religious  life  such  as  might  convert  others  to  the  same  faith, 
but  on  the  other  hand  no  end  of  scandals,  of  crimes,  of 
impious  deeds. 

Wherefore,  since  both  possession  and  a  title  of  posses- 
sion are  lacking,  and  since  the  property  and  the  sovereignty 
of  the  East  Indies  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  if  they  had 
previously  been  res  nullius,  and  since,  as  they  belong  to  the 
East  Indians,  they  could  not  have  been  acquired  legally 
by  other  persons,  it  follows  that  the  East  Indian  nations  in 
question  are  not  the  chattels  of  the  Portuguese,  but  are 
free  men  and  sui  juris.  This  is  not  denied  even  by  the 
Spanish  jurists  themselves.' 

'Victoria,  De  Indis  II,  1. 


CAPVT  V 

Mare  ad  Indos  aut  ius  eo  navigandi  non 

esse  proprium  Lusitanorum  titulo 

occupationis 

Si  ergo  in  populos  terrasque  et  diciones  Lusitani  ius 
nullum  quaesiverunt,  videamus  an  mare  et  navigationem, 
aut  mercaturam  sui  iuris  facere  potuerint.  De  mari  auteni 
prima  sit  consideratio,  quod  cum  passim  in  iure  aut  nullius, 
aut  commune,  aut  publicum  iuris  gentium  dicatur,  hae 
voces  quid  significent  ita  commodissime  expHcabitur,  si 
Poetas  ab  Hesiodo  omnes,  et  Philosophos ;  et  lurisconsultos 
veteres  imitati  in  tempora  distinguamus,  ea,  quae  tempore 
forte  baud  longo,  certa  tamen  ratione,  et  sui  natura  discreta 
sunt.  Xeque  nobis  vitio  verti  debet  si  in  iuris  a  natura  pro- 
cedentis  explicatione  auctoritate  et  verbis  eorum  utimur 
quos  constat  naturali  iudicio  plurimum  valuisse. 

Sciendum  est  igitur  in  primordiis  vitae  humanae  aliud 
quam  nunc  est  dominium,  aliud  communionem  fuisse/  Nam 
dominium  nuac  proprium  quid  sigiiificat,  quod  scilicet  ita 
est  alicuius  ut  alterius  non  sit  eodem  modo.  Commune 
autem    dicimus,    cuius    proprietas    inter    plures    consortio 

'Castrcnsis  on  Digest  I,  1,  5  (Dc  iuslitia  et  iure,  L.  Ex  hoc  iure);  Uist.  I, 
C.  VII   (Ius  naturale). 


CHAPTER  V 

Neither  the  Indian  Ocean  nor  the  right  of  navigation 

thereon  belongs  to  the  Portuguese  by  title  of 

occupation 

If  therefore  the  Portuguese  have  acquired  no  legal  right 
over  the  nations  of  the  East  Indies,  and  their  territory  and 
sovereignty,  let  us  consider  whether  they  have  been  able  to 
obtain  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  sea  and  its  navigation 
or  over  trade.    Let  us  first  consider  the  case  of  the  sea. 

Now,  in  the  legal  phraseology  of  the  Law  of  Nations, 
the  sea  is  called  indifferently  the  property  of  no  one  {res 
nullius),  or  a  common  possession  {res  communis) ,  or  public 
property  {res  publico) .  It  will  be  most  convenient  to  ex- 
plain the  signification  of  these  terms  if  we  follow  the  prac- 
tice of  all  the  poets  since  Hesiod,  of  the  philosophers  and 
jurists  of  the  past,  and  distinguish  certain  epochs,  the  divi- 
sions of  which  are  marked  off  perhaps  not  so  much  by  in- 
tervals of  time  as  by  obvious  logic  and  essential  character. 
And  we  ought  not  to  be  criticised  if  in  our  explanation  of  a 
law  deriving  from  nature,  we  use  the  authority  and  defini- 
tion of  those  whose  natural  judgment  admittedly  is  held  in 
the  highest  esteem. 

It  is  therefore  necessary  to  explain  that  in  the  earliest 
stages  of  human  existence  both  sovereignty  and  common 
possession  had  meanings  other  than  those  which  they  bear 
at  the  present  time.'  For  nowadays  sovereignty  means  a 
particular  kind  of  proprietorship,  such  in  fact  that  it  abso- 
lutely excludes  like  possession  by  any  one  else.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  call  a  thing  '  common '  when  its  ownership 

'Paul  de  Castro  on  Digest  I,  J,  ■•>;  ni=t    I,  C.  VII. 


28 


MARE  LIBERVM 


quodam  aut  consensu  collata  est  exclusis  aliis.  Linguaruni 
paupertas  coegit  voces  easdem  in  re  non  eadcm  usurpare. 
£t  sic  ista  nostri  moris  noniina  ad  ius  iilud  pristinuni 
similitudine  quadam  et  imagine  referuntur.  Commune 
igitur  tunc  non  aliud  fuit  quam  quod  simpliciter  proprio 
opponitur;  dominium  autem  faeultas  non  iniusta  utendi  re 
communi,  queni  usum  Scholasticis  '  visum  est  facti  non  iuris 
vocare,  quia  qui  nunc  in  iure  usus  vocatur,  proprium  est 
quiddam,  aut  ut  illorum  more  loquar,  privative  ad  alios 
dicitur. 

lure  primo  Gentium,  quod  et  Xaturale  interdum  dicitur, 
et  quod  poetae  alibi  aetate  aurea,  alibi  Saturni  aut  lustitiae 
regno  depingunt,  nihil  proprium  fuit;  quod  Cicero  dixit: 
*  Sunt  autem  privata  nulla  natura  '.    Et  Horatius :  ^ 

Nam  PROPRIAE  telluris  ERVM  NATVRA 

neque  ilium 
Xec  mc  ncc  qucmquam  statuit. 

Neque  enim  potuit  natura  dominos  distinguere.  Hoc  igitur 
significatu  res  omnes  eo  tempore  communes  fuisse  dicinms, 
idem  innuentes  quod  poetae  cum  primes  homines  in  medium 
quaesivisse,  et  lustitinm  casto  foedere  res  medias  tenuissc  * 
dicunt ;  quod  ut  clarius  explicent,  negant  eo  tempore  campos 
limite  partitos,  aut  commercia  fuisse  ulla. 

....  promiscua  rura  per  agros 
Pracstitcrant   cutictis  COMMVNIA   cuncta 
VlDERi: 

'  Vasquius,  Controvorsiae  illiistres,  c.  1,  n.  10;  Lib.  VI,  V,  K',  3  (IV 
verboriim  sifrnificationc,  c.  Kxiit,  qui  seminat);  Clrm.  V,  11  (De  verborum  sig- 
niflrationc,  c.  Exivi  de  paradiso). 

•Sermones  II,  i,  1^9-130. 

"  Avienus,  Aratus  30J-303  (promisca  quetura  V;  promiscaque  cura  A;  iur;i 
pcraftros;  praestitcrat  Huhlius,  Breyzig]. 

*  [in  medium  qunerebBiit,  Vtrjril,  (ieorgica  I,  liT;  medias  cnsto  res  more 
tenebas,  Avienus,  Aratus,  ^98  (W.  P.  Mustard)). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


23 


.^ 


or  possession  is  held  by  several  persons  jointly  according 
to  a  kind  of  partnership  or  mutual  agreement  from  which 
all  other  persons  are  excluded.  Poverty  of  language  com- 
pels the  use  of  the  same  words  for  things  that  are  not  the 
same.  And  so  because  of  a  certain  similarity  and  likeness, 
our  modern  nomenclature  is  applied  to  that  state  of  primi- 
tive law.  Now,  in  ancient  times,  '  common '  meant  simply 
the  opposite  of  *  particular  ' ;  and  '  sovereignty  '  or  '  owner- 
ship ',  meant  the  privilege  of  lawfully  using  common  prop- 
erty. This  seemed  to  the  Scholastics '  to  be  a  use  in  fact 
but  not  in  law,  because  what  now  in  law  is  called  use,  is  a 
particular  right,  or  if  I  may  use  their  phraseology,  is,  in 
respect  to  other  persons,  a  privative  right. 

In  the  primitive  law  of  nations,  which  is  sometimes 
called  Natural  Law,  and  which  the  poets  sometimes  por- 
tray as  having  existed  in  a  Golden  Age,  and  some- 
times in  the  reign  of  Saturn  or  of  Justice,  there  was  no 
particular  right.  As  Cicero  says: '  But  nothing  is  by  nature 
private  property  '.  And  Horace:  ^ '  P'or  nature  has  decreed 
to  be  the  master  of  private  soil  neither  him,  nor  me,  nor  any- 
one else '.  For  nature  knows  no  sovereigns.  Therefore  in 
this  sense  we  say  that  in  those  ancient  times  all  things  were 
held  in  common,  meaning  what  the  poets  do  when  they  say 
that  primitive  men  acquired  everything  in  common,  and 
that  Justice  maintained  a  community  of  goods  by  means  of 
an  inviolable  compact.  And  to  make  this  clearer,  they  say 
that  in  those  primitive  times  the  fields  were  not  delimited 
by  boundary  lines,  and  that  there  was  no  commercial  inter- 
course. [As  Avienus  says]  : ' '  The  promiscuity  of  the  fields 
had  made  everything  seem  common  to  all'. 

The  word  '  seemed '  is  rightly  added,  owing  to  the 
clianged  meaning  of  the  words,  as  we  have  noted  above. 

■  Vasquius,  Confroversiae  iUustrcs,  c.  1,  n.  10;  Lib.  VI,  V,  IJ,  3;  Clem.  V,  11. 
'Satires  H,  -2,  lM-130. 
A  rat us  303-303. 


m 


tat 


24 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Recte  additum  est '  videri '  propter  translationem  ut  di.cinus 
vocabuli.    Communio  autem  ista  ad  usum  referebatur:  * 

....  pervium  cunctia  iter. 
COMMVNIS  VSVS  omnium  rerum  fuit. 

Cuius  ratione  dominium  quoddam  erat,  sed  universale,  et 
indefinitum ;  Deus  enim  res  omnes  non  huic  aut  iUi  dederat, 
sed  humano  generi,  atque  eo  modo  plures  in  solidum  eit'sdem 
rei  domini  esse  non  prohibebantur ;  quod  si  hoctierna  signiSca- 
tione  sumamus  dominium,  contra  omnem  est  rationem.  Hoc 
enim  proprietatem  includit,  quae  tunc  erat  penes  neminem. 
A  ptissime  autem  illud  dictum  est : ' 

omnia  rerum 
Vsurpantis  erant. 

Ad  earn  vero,  quae  nunc  est,  dominiorum  distinctionem 
non  impetu  quodam,  sed  paulatim  ventum  videtur,  initiuni 
eius  monstrante  natura.  Cum  enim  res  sint  nonnullae, 
quarum  usus  in  abusu  consistit,  aut  quia  conversae  in  sub- 
stantiam  utentis  nullum  postea  usum  admittunt,  aut  quia 
utendo  fiunt  ad  usum  deteriores,  in  rebus  prioris  generis,  ut 
cibo  et  putu.  proprictas  statim  quaedam  ab  usu  non  seiuncta 
cmicuit.'  Hoc  enim  est  proprium  esse,  ita  esse  cuiusquniii 
ut  ct  alterius  esse  non  possit;  quod  deinde  ad  res  posterioris 
generis,  vcstes  puta.  et  res  mobiles  alias  aut  se  moventcs 
ratione  qundam  productuni  est. 

Quod  cum  esset,  ne  res  quidem  inimobiles  omnes,  agri 

'Swiwa,  Ortavia  4r»-4I4. 

•  Avirnus,  Arntus  '«).'. 

'DIjtTi't  VII,  a  (I)r  usu  fnirtu  riirum  rfrum,  quae  usu  ronnumuntur  vf' 
niinuunlur) ;  I'.xlrav.i^.  XIV,  :l  it  .'>  (Dc  \t'rlK)riiiii  siicnilli'ntlonf,  c.  Atl  cunditun  iii, 
et  c.  Quia  quurumJuiii) ;  Tliumnii  Ai|iiiiia!t,  Suiuiiih  II.  II,  q.  78, 


1 


■i 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


24 


But  that  kind  of  common  possession  relates  to  use,  as  is  seen 
from  a  quotation  from  Seneca:  ^ 

"  Every  path  was  free. 
All  things  were  used  in  common." 


According  to  his  reasoning  there  was  a  kind  of  sovereignty, 
but  it  was  universal  and  unlimited.  For  God  had  not  given 
all  things  to  this  individual  or  to  that,  but  to  the  entire 
human  race,  and  thus  a  number  of  persons,  as  it  were  en 
masse,  were  not  debarred  from  being  substantially  sover- 
eigns or  owners  of  the  same  thing,  which  is  quite  contra- 
dictory to  our  modern  meaning  of  sovereignty.  For  it  now 
implies  particular  or  private  ownership,  a  thing  which  no 
one  then  had.  Avienus  has  said  very  pertinently:''  'All 
things  belonged  to  him  who  had  possession  of  them  *. 

It  seems  certain  *hat  the  transition  to  the  present  dis- 
tinction of  ownership  did  not  come  violently,  but  grad- 
uallj',  nature  herself  pointing  out  the  way.  For  since  there 
arc  some  things,  the  use  of  wlucli  consists  in  their  being 
used  up,  either  because  having  become  part  of  the  very 
substance  of  the  user  they  can  never  be  used  again,  or  l)e- 
cause  by  use  they  become  less  fit  for  future  use,  it  has  be- 
come apparent,  especially  in  dealing  with  the  first  category, 
such  things  as  food  and  drink  for  example,  that  a  certain 
kind  of  ownership  is  inseparable  from  use.'  For  '  own ' 
implies  that  a  thin^  belongs  to  some  one  person,  in  such 
a  way  that  it  cannot  belong  to  any  other  person.  By  the 
j)rocc.ss  of  reasoning  this  was  next  extended  to  things  of 
the  second  category,  such  as  clothes  and  movables  and  some 
living  things. 

When  that  had  come  about,  not  even  immovables,  such. 

•Ortaiia  iH  114  [Trnnslntlon  liy  F,  I.  Uarrh  (Aft   II,  Scrnr  1)]. 
•A  rat  us  :tO.'. 

■|)i|H-.l  VII,  5;  F,xlrav«(tHntcs  of  Pope  John  XXII,  XIV,  :l  and  i;  TlioinM 
Aquinas,  iiuimim  II.   II,  q.  78. 


J." 


25 


MARE  LIBERVM 


puta,  indivisae  manere  potuerunt;  quamquam  enim  horum 
usus  non  simpliciter  in  abusu  consistat,  eorum  tamen  usus 
abusus  cuiusdam  causa  comparatus  est,  ut  arva  et  arbusta 
cibi  causa,  pascua  etiam  vestium;  omnium  autem  usibus 
promiscue  sufficere  non  possunt.  Repertae  proprietati  lex 
posita  est,  quae  naturam  imitaretur.  Sicut  enim  initio  per 
applicationem  corporalem  usus  ille  habebatur,  unde  pro- 
prietatem  primum  ortam  diximus,  ita  simili  applicatione 
res  nroprias  cuiusque  fieri  placuit.  Haec  est  quae  dicitur 
occupatio,  voce  accommodatissima  ad  eas  res  quae  ante  in 
medio  positae  fuerant;  quo  Seneca  Tragicus  alludit: ' 

IN  MEDIO  egt  scelus 
POSITVM  OCCVPANTI. 

Et  Philosophus: ' '  Equestria  OIklNIVM  equitum  Romano- 
rum  sunt.  In  illis  tamen  locus  meus  fit  PROPRIVS. 
queni  OCCVPAVI '.  Hinc  Quintilianus  dicit,'  quod  omni- 
bus nascitur,  industriae  esse  praemium;  et  TuUius,*  factas 
esse  veteri  occupatione  res  eorum  qui  quondam  in  vacua 
venerant. 

Occupatio  autem  haec  in  his  rebus  quae  possession! 
renituntur,  ut  sunt  ferae  bestiae,  perpetua  esse  debet,  in 
aliis  sufficit,  corpore  coeptam  possessionem  aninio  retintri. 
Occupatio   in  mobillbus   est   npprchcnsio,   in   iinmobilibus 

•Thyestrs  903-ini  (K.  CXXII). 

'  Or  lirnificiii  VII,  I.',  ;l. 

■  l'».  giilntili.'iniis,  Dc.'Innintiii  XIII   (I'm  piiiiptTf). 

*  Oftero,  Ut  olUi'iii.  I. 


ri'*| 
h 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


25 


for  instance,  as  fields,  could  remain  unapportioned.  For 
although  their  use  does  not  consist  merely  in  consumption, 
nevertheless  it  is  bound  up  with  subsequent  consumption, 
as  fields  and  plants  are  used  to  get  food,  and  pastures  to 
get  clothing.  There  is,  however,  not  enough  fixed  property 
to  satisfy  the  use  of  everybody  indiscriminately. 

When  property  or  ownership  was  invented,  the  law  of 
property  was  established  to  imitate  nature.  For  as  that 
use  began  in  connection  with  bodily  needs,  from  which  as 
we  have  said  property  first  arose,  so  by  a  similar  connection 
it  was  decided  that  things  were  the  property  of  individuals. 
This  is  called  '  occupation  *,  a  word  most  appropriate  to 
those  things  which  in  former  times  had  been  held  in  com- 
mon. It  is  this  to  which  Seneca  alludes  in  his  tragedy 
Thyestes, 

"  Crime  is  between  us  to  be  seized  by  one." ' 

And  in  one  of  his  philosophical  ^vritings  he  also  says:  * '  The 
equestrian  rows  of  seats  belong  to  all  the  equites;  neverthe- 
less, the  scat  of  which  I  have  taken  possession  is  my  own 
private  place '.  Further,  Quintilian  remarks '  that  a  thing 
which  is  created  for  all  is  the  reward  of  industry,  and  Cicero 
says  •  that  things  which  have  been  occupied  for  a  long  time 
Itccome  the  property  of  those  who  originally  found  them 
unoccupied. 

This  occupation  or  possession,  however,  in  the  case  of 
things  which  resist  seizure,  like  wild  animals  for  example, 
must  be  uninterrupted  or  perpetually  maintained,  but  in  the 
case  of  other  things  it  is  sufficient  if  after  physical  posses- 
sion is  once  taken  the  intention  to  possess  is  maintained. 
Possession  of  movables  implies  seizure,  and  possession  of 

•  :os-204  (K.  I.  n«r-!V  trnnsUtlon  (Art  11,  Scene  1)). 

IV   lirnrflriis    VII,    ]i,  3. 
'  Sirrili  XIII,  In  briialf  of  thr  poor  man. 
'  l)e  .WBiils  I. 


ill 


i 


ft 


m 


26 


MARE  LIBERVM 


i! 


instructio  aut  limitatio;  unde  Hermogenianus  cum  dominia 
distincta  dicit,  addit,  agris  terminos  positos,  aedificia  col- 
locata.*    Hie  reruin  status  a  poetis  indicatur: 

Turn  laqueis  capture  feras.  et  fallere  visco 
Inventum. 

Turn  primum  subiere  domos.' 

COMMVNEMQVE  PRIVS,  ceu  lumina  solis 

et  auras 
Cautus  humum  longo  signavit  LIMITE  mensor.' 

Celebratur  post  haec,  ut  Hermogenianus  indicat,  comnicr- 
cium  cuius  gralia 

Fluctibus  ignotis  imultavere  carinae.* 

Eoden  autem  tempore  et  respublicae  institui  coeperunt. 
Atque  ita  earum  quae  a  prima  communione  divulsa  erant 
duo  facta  sunt  genera.  Alia  enim  sunt  publica,  hoc  est, 
populi  propria  (quae  est  genuina  istius  vocis  significatio) 
alia  mere  privata,  hoc  est,  singulorum.  Occupatio  autcm 
publica  e(Hlem  modo  fit,  quo  privata.  Seneca:'  'Finos 
Atheniensium,  aut  Campanorum  vocamus,  quos  deinde  inter 
se  vicini  privata  terminatione  distinguunt '.  Gens  eniin 
unaquaeque 

•OlgMt  I,  I,  5  (D.   iuttitia  ft  lure,  L.  Ex  hoc  iurr). 

•  Vprpil,  Gforgira   I,  139-140;  Ovid.  Mctamorphnsrs   I,   Ul. 

•OtIiI,  Mftamorphows  I,  ini-136. 

*Ovld,  MftdmorphoRTs  I,  134  (rxsultavcrr,  Magnus). 

•Dc  benendiii  VII,  4,  3. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


26 


immovables  either  the  erection  of  buildings  or  some  de- 
termination of  boundaries,  such  as  fencing  in.  Hence 
Hermogenianus,  in  speaking  of  separate  ownerships,  adds 
the  boundaries  set  to  the  fields  and  the  buildings  thereon 
constructed.'  This  state  of  things  is  described  thus  by  the 
poets  Vergil  and  Ovid: 

"  Then  toils  for  beasts,  and  lime  for  birds,  were 
found" ' 

Then  first  men  made  homes. 

"  Then  landmarks  limited  to  each  his  right, 
For  all  before  teas  common  as  the  light."  ^ 

In  still  another  place,  as  Hermogenianus  points  out,  Ovid 
praises  commerce,  for  the  sake  of  which :  * 

'  Ships  in  triumph  sail  the  unknown  seas '. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  states  began  to  be  established, 
and  so  two  categories  were  made  of  the  things  which  had 
l)een  wrested  away  from  early  ownership  in  common.  For 
some  things  were  public,  that  is,  were  the  property  of  the 
people  (which  is  the  real  meaning  of  that  expression),  while 
otiicr  things  were  private,  that  is,  were  the  property  of  in- 
dividuals. Ownership,  however,  both  public  and  private, 
arises  in  the  same  way.  On  this  point  Seneca  says : '  '  We 
speak  in  general  of  the  land  of  the  Athenians  or  the  Cam- 
panians.  It  is  the  same  land  which  again  by  means  of 
private  boundaries  is  divided  among  individual  owners*. 
•OiifMt  I.  1,  i. 

'  Vf rgil,  Uror^rirt  I,  139-140  ( Drj-drn's  trntiHlation  I,  ill  | ;  Ovid,  Metumorpho-cs 
1.  U'l. 

•Ovid,   Mft«ni<)rpho»t»   I,  13J-136   IDrjdin's   translation    I    (r,ngll.-.h   VoeU 
XX,  4;iJ)|. 

MKid,  MrtamorpliusM  I,  134. 
■IV-  brnenciis   VII,  i,  3. 


27  MARE  LIBERVM 

PARTITA  FINES  regna  constituit,  novas 
Extruxit  FREEST 


Hoc  modo  dicit  Cicero  agrum  Arpinatem  Arpinatium  dici. 
Tusculanum  Tusculanorum : '  similisque  est ',  inquit,  '  priva- 
tarum  possessionum  discriptio.  Ex  quo  quia  suum  cuiusque 
fit  eorum,  quae  natura  fuerant  COMMVNIA,  quod  cuique 
obtigit,  id  quisque  teneat ','  Contra  autem  Thucydides' 
cam  terrani  quae  in  divisione  populo  nuUi  obvenit,  Aopiffrry, 
hoc  est,  indefinitam,  et  limitibus  nullis  circumscriptani 
vocat.* 

Ex  his  quae  hactenus  dicta  sunt  duo  intelligi  possunt. 
Prius  est,  eas  res  quae  occupari  non  possunt,  aut  occu- 
patae  numquam  sunt,  nullius  proprias  esse  posse;  quia 
omnis  proprietas  ab  occupatione  coeperit.  Alterum  vero, 
eas  res  onmes,  quae  ita  a  natura  comparatae  sunt,  ut  aliquo 
utente  nihilominus  aliis  quibusvis  ad  usum  promiscue  sulK- 
ciant,  eius  hodieque  condicionis  esse,  et  perpetuo  esse  deberc 
cuius  fuerant  cum  prinmm  a  natura  proditae  sunt.  Hoc 
Cicero  voluit:  ° '  Ac  latissinie  quidem  patens  hominibus  inter 
ipsos,  omnibus  inter  onmcs  societas  haec  est;  in  qua  omnium 
rcrom,  quas  ad  conuiiuncm  hominum  usum  natura  genuit. 
est  servanda  comnmnitas '.  Sunt  autem  omnes  res  huiiis 
generis,  in  quibus  sine  dctrimcnto  alterius  alter!  commodari 
potest.  Hinc  illud  esse  dicit  Cicero: "  '  Non  prohibere  aqua 
profluentc  '.    Nam  aqua  proflucns  qua  talis  non  qua  flunien 

'  Ottavia  431-437. 

'  Uc  officii*  I,  Jl. 

'  Thutyiiidrs  I,  V.i'J,  J. 

'  Duarenus  on  l)i»fl^l  I,  H  {l)f  llivi^illtK■  rrruiii). 

'  l)e  offlciis  I,  51. 

•  I)r  officii!,  I,  Si. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


27 


'  For  each  nation ',  Seneca  says  in  another  place,  '  made  its 
territories  into  separate  kingdoms  and  built  new  cities '.' 
Thus  Cicero  says :  "  On  this  principle  the  lands  of  Arpinum 
are  said  to  belong  to  the  Arpinates,  the  Tusculan  lands  to 
the  Tusculans;  and  similar  is  the  assignment  of  private 
property.  Therefore,  inasmuch  as  in  each  case  some  of 
those  things  which  by  nature  had  been  common  property 
became  the  property  of  individuals,  each  one  should  retain 
possession  of  that  which  has  fallen  to  his  lot."  ^  On  the 
other  hand  Thucydides '  calls  the  land  which  in  the  division 
falls  to  no  nation,  aopitrro?,  that  is,  undefined,  and  unde- 
termined by  boundaries.* 

Two  conclusions  may  be  drawn  from  what  has  thus  far 
been  said.  The  first  is,  that  that  which  cannot  be  occupied, 
or  which  never  has  been  occupied,  cannot  be  the  property 
of  any  one,  because  all  property  has  arisen  from  occupation. 
The  second  is,  that  all  that  which  has  been  so  constituted 
by  nature  that  although  serving  some  one  person  it  still 
suffices  for  the  common  use  of  all  other  persons,  is  today 
and  ought  in  perpetuity  to  remain  in  the  same  condition  as 
when  it  was  first  created  by  nature.  This  is  what  Cicero 
I  meant  when  he  wrote:  "  This  then  is  the  most  comprehen- 
sive bond  that  unites  together  men  as  men  and  all  to  all; 
and  under  it  the  common  right  to  all  things  that  nature  has 
produced  for  the  common  use  of  man  is  to  be  maintained."  ' 
All  things  which  can  be  used  without  loss  to  any  one  else 
come  under  this  categorj'.  Hence,  says  Cicero,  comes  the 
well  known  prohibition: ' '  Deny  no  one  the  water  that  flows 
l)y '.    For  running  water  considered  as  such  and  not  as  a 

'  Oolavlo  431-433  [Grotlus  here  takes  a  slight  lilierty  with  the  context]. 
'  IV  Dffioiis  I,  21  (Walter  Miller's  (I^b)  translation,  page  33). 

•  llistorj-  I,  139,  i. 

'  Diiaren  fa  French  humanist  (1509-1549)],  on  Difrrst  I,  8. 
'  !)<■  Lfficiis  I,  51   (Walter  .Miller's   (Loeb)   translation,  page  55]. 

•  L)c  offlriis  !,  .5^>. 


mi 


'^\ 


m 


28 


MARE  LIBERVM 


est,  inter  communia  omnium  a  lurisconsultis  refertur:  et  a 
Poeta: ' 

Quid  prohibetis  AQVAS?  VSVS  COMMVNIS 

aqti-arum  est. 
Nee  solem  PROPRIFM  NATVRA  nee  AERA 

feeit. 
Nee    tenues    VNDAS:   in   PVBLICA    munera 

veni. 

Dicit  haec  non  esse  natura  propria,  sicut  Vlpianus' 
natura  omnibus  patere,  tiun  quia  primum  a  natura  prodita 
sunt,  et  in  nullius  adhuc  dominium  pervenerunt  (ut  loquitur 
Neratius ') ;  turn  quia  ut  Cicero  dicit,  a  natura  ad  usum 
communem  genita  videntur.  Publica  autem  vocat  tralatitia 
significatione,  non  quae  ad  populum  aliquem,  sed  quae  ad 
societatem  humanam  pertinent,  quae  publica  luris  gentium 
in  Legibus  vocantur,  hoc  est,  communia  omnium,  propria 
nullius. 

Huius  generis  est  Aer,  duplici  ratione,  tum  quia  occupari 
non  potest,  tum  quia  usum  promiscuum  hominibus  debet, 
Et  eisdem  de  causis  commune  est  omnium  Maris  Elcnitii- 
tum,  infinitum  scilicet  ita,  ut  possideri  non  queat,  et  omnium 
usibus  acconimodatum:  sive  navigationem  respicimus,  sive 
etiam  piscaturam.  Cuius  autem  iuris  est  mare,  eiusdeni 
sunt  si  qua  mare  aliis  usibus  eripiendo  sua  fecit,  ut  arcnae 
maris,  quarum  pars  terris  continua  litus  dicitur.*  Rede 
igitur  Cicero:'  'quid  tarn  COMMVNE  quam  Mare  fbic- 

•0\i(),  Mefamorphosfs  VI,  349-351  (ariuis,  349,  and  ad  publicn,  351,  Mcrkrl) 
•  I)i(re<;t  VIII,  4,  13  (Cnrnmiinia  prni-diorum,  L.  Venditor). 
•Digest   XI. I,   1,    14    (He   ndqiiirendn  rerum   dominio,   L.   Quod   in   litnrrS: 
Comines,  M»-ni"lrs  III,  2;  noticllus  IV,  2;  nip-.st  XLI,  3,  49  (Dc  usm npionil  ii  ) 
•Dijrest   i,  8,  10  (De  dlvisione  rerum,  L.  Aristo). 
•Cicero,   Loco  eitiito.    [I'm  Jiex.   HoM'in   Ainerinii    ,'H,  T}], 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


28 


I 


stream,  is  classed  by  the  jurists  among  the  things  conmion 
to  all  mankind ;  as  is  done  also  by  Ovid : ' '  Why  do  you  deny 
me  water?  Its  use  is  free  to  all.  Nature  has  made  neither 
sun  nor  air  nor  waves  private  property;  they  are  public 
gifts'. 

He  says  that  these  things  are  not  by  nature  private 
possession,  but  that,  as  Ulpian  claims,'  they  are  by  nature 
things  open  to  the  use  of  all,  both  because  in  the  first  place 
they  were  produced  by  nature,  and  have  nevei  yet  come 
under  the  sovereignty  of  any  one,  as  Neratius  says; '  and  in 
the  second  place  because,  as  Cicero  says,  they  seem  to  have 
been  created  by  nature  for  common  use.  But  the  poet  uses 
'public',  in  its  usual  meaning,  not  of  those  things  which 
belong  to  any  one  people,  but  to  human  society  as  a  whole ; 
that  is  to  say,  things  which  are  called  '  public '  are,  accord- 
ing to  the  Laws  of  the  law  of  nations,  the  common  property 
of  all,  and  the  private  property  of  none. 

The  air  belongs  to  this  class  of  things  for  two  reasons. 
First,  it  is  not  susceptible  of  occupation;  and  second  its 
common  use  is  destined  for  all  men.  For  the  same  reasons 
the  sea  is  common  to  all,  because  it  is  so  limitless  that  it 
cannot  become  a  possession  of  any  one,  and  because  it  is 
adapted  for  the  use  of  all,  whether  we  consider  it  from  the 
point  of  view  of  navigation  or  of  fisheries.  Now,  the  same 
right  which  applies  to  the  sea  applies  also  to  the  things 
which  the  sea  has  carried  away  from  other  uses  and  made 
its  own,  such  for  example  as  the  sands  of  the  sea,  of  which 
the  portion  adjoining  the  land  is  called  the  coast  or  shore.* 
Cicero  therefore  argues  correctly:  °  '  What  is  so  common  as 


Ml 


'  Metamorphoses  VI,  349-351. 

'  nipe-it  vm,  ♦,  13. 

'  ni(re^f  XM,  I.  14;  Comines,  Memoirs  III,  2;  Donellu.i  IV,  1;  Diftr.^t  XLI, 
3.  W.  [Philippe  de  Comines  (1445-1509).  a  French  historian,  anil  one  of  the 
npp.it iiitors  of  the  treaty  of  Senlis  (J493).] 

'  Dip  if  I,  B.  10. 

'  i'ni  Stx.    Koscio  Amrrino  .6,  'i2. 


m 


29 


MARE  LIBERVM 


tuantibus,    LITVS    eiectis"?      Etiam    Vergilius    aurain, 
undam,  litus  cunctis  patere  dicit. 

Haec  igitur  sunt  ilia  quae  Romani  vocant  conununia 
omnium  iure  naturali '  aut  quod  idem  esse  diximus,  publica 
iurisgentium,  sicut  et  usum  eorum  modo  communem,  modo 
publicum  vocant.  Quaniquam  vero  etiam  ea  nullius  esse. 
quod  ad  proprietatem  attinet,  recte  dicantur,  multum  tamei. 
differunt  ab  his  quae  nullius  sunt,  et  communi  usui  attributn 
non  sunt,  ut  ferae,  pisces,  aves;  nam  ista  si  quis  occupet,  in  ius 
proprium  transire  possunt,  ilia  vero  totius  humanitatis  con- 
sensu proprietati  in  perpetuum  excepta  sunt  propter  usum, 
qui  cum  sit  omnium,  non  magis  omnibus  ab  uno  eripi  potest, 
quani  a  te  mihi  quod  meum  est.  Hoc  est  quod  Cicero  dicit 
inter  prima  esse  lustitiae  munera,  rebus  communibus  pro 
communibus  uti.  Scholastici  dicerent  esse  communia  alia 
affirmative,  alia  privative.  Distinctio  haec  non  modo 
lurisprudentibus  usitata  est,  sed  vulgi  etiam  confessionein 
exprimit ;  unde  apud  Athenaeum  convivator  mare  commune 
esse  dicit,  at  pisces  capientium  fieri.  Et  in  Flautina  Ru- 
dente  sen-o  dicenti,^  '  Mare  quidein  commune  certost  omni- 
bus', assentit  piscator,  addenti  autem,  '  In  mari  inventust 
communi '  recte  occurrit: 


Mcum  quod  rctc  ntque  hami  nancti  sunt,  mcum 
pot'tmmumst. 

'Institutes  II,  1,  1  et  5  (Dc  rcnitn  divisionc,  §  F.t  quidem  naturnii; 
5  I.itnriim);  Dipst  I,  H,  1,  2,  10  (Dc  rermii  liivisione) ;  Digest  XI. I,  I,  U  rt  ji 
(IV  ailquireiidii  rrniiii  (iouiinii),  I,.  (Juod  in  lltore,  et  L.  Quainvis);  Digest  XLN'II, 
10,  \'^  (Dr  iniurils,  I..  Iniurlarum  §  si  quis  me);  Digest  XLIII,  8,  3  (Xe  quid  in 
loco  publico,  L.  Litora)  et  4-7. 

"975,  977,  985  (IV,  3). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


29 


r 


the  sea  for  those  who  are  being  tossed  upon  it,  the  shore  for 
th.ie  who  have  been  cast  thereon '.  Vergil  also  says  that 
the  air,  the  sea,  and  the  shore  are  open  to  all  men. 

These  things  therefore  are  what  the  Romans  call  '  com- 
mon '  to  all  men  by  natural  law,'  or  as  we  have  said, '  public  ' 
according  to  the  law  of  nations;  and  indeed  they  call  their 
use  sometimes  common,  sometimes  public.  Nevertheless, 
although  those  things  are  with  reason  said  to  be  res  nullius, 
so  far  as  private  ownership  is  concerned,  still  they  differ 
very  much  from  those  things  which,  though  also  res  nullius, 
have  not  been  marked  out  for  common  use,  such  for  example 
as  wild  animals,  fish,  and  b;  Is.  For  if  any  one  seizes  those 
things  and  assumes  possession  of  them,  they  can  become 
objects  of  private  ownership,  but  the  things  in  the  former 
category  by  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  all  mankind  are 
forever  exempt  from  such  private  ownership  on  account  of 
their  susceptibility  to  universal  use;  and  as  they  belong  to 
all  they  cannot  be  taken  away  from  all  by  any  one  person 
any  more  than  what  is  mine  can  be  taken  away  from  me  by 
you.  And  Cicero  says  that  one  of  the  first  gifts  of  Justice 
is  the  use  of  common  property  for  common  benefit.  The 
Scholastics  would  define  one  of  these  categories  as  common 
in  an  afllrmative,  the  other  in  a  privative  sense.  This  dis- 
tinction is  not  only  familiar  to  jurists,  but  it  also  expresses 
the  popular  belief.  In  Athenaeus  for  instance  the  host  is 
made  to  say  that  the  sea  is  the  common  property  of  all,  but 
that  fish  are  the  private  property  of  him  who  catches  them. 
And  in  Plautus*  Rudens  when  the  slave  says:  ^  '  The  sea  is 
certainly  common  to  all  persons  ',  the  fisherman  agrees :  but 
when  the  slave  adds:  '  Then  what  is  found  in  the  common 
sea  is  common  property',  he  rightly  objects,  saying:  '  But 
what  my  net  and  hooks  have  taken,  is  absolutely  my  own '. 

Mnstitufes  II,  1,  1  and  :,;  Dipst  I.  8,  1,  2,  10;  XLI,  1,  U  ami  JO;  XLVII, 
10.  13;   XI.MI,  8,  3,   ,ind  4-7. 


4 


■I 


Act  IV,  Scene  3  (y?5,  977 


ilbj). 


80 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Mare  igitur  proprium  omnino  alicuius  fieri  non  potest, 
quia  natura  commune  hoc  esse  non  permittit,  sed  iubet, 
immo  ne  litus  quidem;'  nisi  quod  haec  addenda  est  inter- 
pretatio;  ut  si  quid  earum  rerimi  per  naturam  occupari 
possit,  id  eatenus  occupantis  fiat,  quatenus  ea  occupatione 
usus  ille  promiscuus  non  laeditur.  Quod  merito  receptuiii 
est ;  nam  cum  ita  se  habet,  cessat  utraque  exceptio  per  quani 
evenisse  diximus,  ne  omnia  in  eius  proprium  trans- 
criberentur. 

Quoniam  igitur  inaedificatio  species  est  occupationis,  in 
litore  licet  aedificare,  si  id  fieri  potest  sine  ceterorum  incom- 
modo,''  ut  Pomponius  loquitur,  quod  ex  Scaevola  explica- 
bimus,  nisi  usus  publicus,  hoc  est  communis  impediretur. 
Et  qui  aedificaverit,  soli  dominus  fiet,  quia  id  solum  ncc 
uUius  proprium,  nee  ad  usum  communem  necessarium  fuit. 
Est  igitur  occupantis ;  sed  non  diutius  quam  durat  occupatio, 
quia  reluctari  mare  possessioni  videtur,  cxemplo  ferae,  quae 
si  in  naturalem  se  libertatem  receperit,  non  ultra  captoris 
est,  ita  et  litus  postliminio  mari  c  'it. 

Quicquid  autem  privatum  fieri  occupando,  idem  et  pub- 
licum, hoc  est  populi  proprium  posse  ostendinms.'  Sic  litus 
Imperi  Romani  finibus  inclusum,  populi  Roniani  esse  Celsus 


•  Donellus  IV,  2. 

•Digest  XXXIX,  i?,  2i  (De  damno  infecto,  L.  Fluniinum);  other  reference; 
sanie  us  note  I,  ynfi;  .'!). 

•Donellus  IV,  i?  et  9;  ulso  references  in  note  1,  page  J9. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


30 


■; 


>i.'. 


Therefore  the  sea  can  in  no  way  become  the  private 
property  of  any  one,  because  nature  not  only  allows  but 
enjoins  its  common  use.'  Neither  can  the  shore  become  the 
private  property  of  any  one.  The  following  qualification, 
however,  must  be  made.  If  any  part  of  these  things  is  by 
nature  susceptible  of  occupation,  it  may  become  the  prop- 
erty of  the  one  who  occupies  it  only  so  far  as  such  occupa- 
tion does  not  affect  its  common  use.  Th'  f  ual-^cation  is 
deservedly  recognized.  For  in  such  a  .\i,c  <).,ii,  con^-^'^ns 
vanish  through  which  it  might  eventu: ;  a..  *  *  na.  ^  ■  \. 
that  all  of  it  would  pass  into  private  r.  c  ,•■     p. 

Since  therefore,  to  cite  Pompon',  v  ba.  m 
of  occupation,  it  is  permissible  to  ',!:u;  .ix 
this  can  be  done  without  inconvenif  no'  r 
is  to  say  (I  here  follow  Scaevola,  ,H  1  i  ,: 
(lone  without  hindrance  to  public  Oi  c.-ai; 
shore.  And  whoever  shall  have  constiurt 
under  the  aforesaid  circumstances  will  betci 
the  ground  upon  which  said  building  is;  because  this  ground 
is  neither  the  property  of  any  one  else,  nor  is  it  necessary 
to  common  jse.  It  becomes  therefore  the  property  of  the 
occupier,  but  his  ownership  lasts  no  longer  than  his  occupa- 
tion lasts,  inasmuch  as  the  sea  seems  by  nature  to  resist 
ownership.  For  just  as  a  wild  animal,  if  it  shall  have 
escaped  and  thus  recovered  its  natural  liberty,  is  no  longer 
the  property  of  its  captor,  so  also  the  sea  may  recover 
its  possession  of  the  shore. 

We  have  now  shown  that  whatever  by  occupation  can 
become  private  property  can  also  become' public  propert 
that  is,  the  private  property  of  a  whole  nation.'    And  so 
Celsus  considered  the  shore  included  within  the  limits  of 
the  Roman  Empire  to  be  the  property  of  the  Roman  people. 

•  Donellus  IV,  3. 

'Dip-st  XXXIX.  2,  2i;  other  rcferrnces  samp  as  nnfi-  1.  pap?  39. 

'Donellus  IV,  3  and  9;  also  references  in  no»c  I,  page  29. 


t:;rid 
,1-ore,  <\ 
]■  .  th.-t 
■  Ti  Ik 
•  'i'"  tiie 

<;i!ii(li   g 
of 


OV.ir- 


4f- 


31 


MARE  LIBERVM 


existiniat;  quod  si  ita  est,  minime  mirandum  est,  eundem 
Populum  subditis  suis  occupandi  litoris  inodum  pc  Prin- 
cipem  aut  Praetorem  potuisse  concedere.  Ceterum  et  haec 
occupatio  non  minus  quam  privata  ita  restringenda  est,  ne 
ulterius  porrigatur,  quain  ut  salvus  sit  usus  lurisgentiuni. 
Nemo  igitur  potest  a  Populo  Romano '  ad  litus  maris 
accedere  prohiberi,  et  retia  siccare,  et  alia  facere,  quae  semcl 
omnes  homines  in  perpetuum  sibi  licere  voluerimt. 

Maris  autem  natura  lioc  differt  a  litore,  quod  mare  nisi 
exigua  sui  parte  nee  inaedificari  facile,  nee  includi  potest; 
et  ut  posset,  hoc  ipsum  tamen  vix  eontingerct,  sine  usus 
promiscui  irnpedinjento.  Si  quid  tamen  exiguum  ita  occu- 
pari  potest,  id  occupanti  conceditur.    Hyperbole  est  igitur ' 

Contracta  pisccs  nequora  scntiunt 
lactis  in  altiim  molibus. 

Nam  Celsus  iactas  in  mare  pilas  eius  esse  dicit  qui  iecerit.' 
Sed  id  non  coiiccdciidum  si  dcterior  maris  usus  eo  nio<lo 
futurus  sit.  Et  Vlpianus  cum  qui  nioleni  in  mare  iacit,  ita 
tutiuluni  (lirit  si  nemo  danmum  sentiat.  Nam  si  cui  hiUf 
res  ncKltura  sit.  iiiti rdictum  utique,  '  Ne  quid  in  loco  publico 
fiat '  compctiturum.  Vt  et  Lalwo,  si  quid  talc  in  marc 
struatiir.  intcrdictum  vult  coinpttorc,  '  Ne  quid  in  mari,  quo 
portus.  statio,  itervc  navigiis  dctcrius  sit.  fiat '.  * 

■  ni(f«-f  I.  *«.  4  (n<-  (iivWonr  rcruiii,  L.  Nemo  Igitur);  XI.IIl,  «,  3  (N<"  quil 
in  lorn  |Mil)lii'ii,  I,,  litori). 

*  llMrarr,  Cnniiiiiii   III,  i,  Xi-.U. 

■  |li■•.^t  XI.IIl,  K  :l  (IS  In  nolr  1);  H,  i  (rml.  tH,.  I..  Prnrtor,  §  Advrrsu-i. 
•I)l(.'i'!.l  XLIII,  1.',  I   (l)r  i|iiti.inil)ii.s,  1..  Ait  |irii<liip,  §  M  in  ni«ri). 


FREEI'DM  OF  THE  SEAS 


81 


There  is  not  therefore  the  least  reason  for  surprise  that  the 
Roman  people  through  their  emperors  or  praetors  was  able 
to  grant  to  its  subjects  the  right  of  occupying  the  shore. 
This  public  occupation,  however,  no  less  than  private  occu- 
pation, was  subject  to  the  restriction  that  it  should  not  in- 
fringe on  international  rights.  Therefore  the  Roman  peo- 
ple could  not  forbid  any  one  from  having  access  to  the 
seashore,'  and  from  spreading  liis  fishing  nets  there  to  dry, 
and  from  doing  other  things  which  all  men  long  ago  decided 
were  always  permissible. 

The  nature  of  the  sea,  however,  differs  from  that  of  the 
sliore,  because  the  sea,  except  for  a  very  restricted  space, 
can  neither  easily  be  built  upon,  nor  inclosed ;  if  the  contrary 
were  true  yet  this  could  hardly  happen  without  hindrance  to 
the  general  use.  Nevertheless,  if  any  small  portion  of  the 
sea  can  be  thus  occupied,  the  occupation  is  recognized.  The 
famous  hyperbole  of  Horace  must  be  quoted  here .  "  The 
fishes  note  the  narrowing  of  the  waters  by  piers  of  rock 
laid  in  their  depths."  ' 

Now  Celsus  holds  that  piles  driven  into  the  sea  belong 
to  the  man  who  drove  them."  But  such  an  act  is  not  per- 
missible if  the  use  of  the  sea  be  thereby  impaired.  And 
ripian  says  tluit  whoever  builds  a  breakwater  must  l)e  pro- 
tected if  it  is  not  prejudicial  to  the  interests  (if  any  one;  for 
if  this  construction  is  likely  to  work  nn  injury  to  any  one, 
the  injunction  '  Nothing?  may  be  built  on  public  property ' 
would  apply.  Labeo.  however,  holds  that  in  case  any  such 
^instruction  should  l»e  made  in  the  sea.  the  following  in- 
junction ir  to  be  enforced:  'Nothing  may  be  built  in  the 
si.i  whereby  the  hnrlwr.  the  roadstead,  or  the  channel  be 
rendered  less  safe  for  navigation  '.* 

'ni»fC5t    I.  «,  4;   XI. Ml.  H,  T 

'(»<lrs  III,  I,  ri:j-;j»  iMmnHl's  (Ixwl))  trnii>.l.ili.)n,  pup-  171]. 

Ki^Tvl   XI. Ill,  H.  ;ij  H,  .>. 
'I litest   XI.III,   U,  I. 


i. 

i 


I 
I 


i 


82 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Quae  autem  navigationis  eadem  piscatus  habenda  est 
ratio,  ut  communis  maneat  omnibus,  Neque  tamen  peccabit 
si  quis  in  maris  diverticulo  piscandi  locum  sibi  palls  circum- 
sepiat,  atque  ita  privatum  faciat;  sicut  LucuUus  exciso  apud 
Neapolim  monte  ad  villam  suam  maria  admisit/  £t  huius 
generis,  puto  fuisse  piscinas  maritimas  quarum  Varro  et 
Columella  meminerunt.  Nee  Martialis  alio  spectavit,  cum 
de  Formiano  ApoUinaris  loquitur: ' 

Si  quando  NEEEVS  sentit  Aeoli  regnum. 
Ridct  proccllas  tuta  dc  SVO  menta. 

Et  Ambrosius: '  '  Inducis  mare  intra  praedia  tua  ne  desint 
belluae '.  Hinc  apparere  potest  quae  mens  Pauli  fuerit, 
cum  dicit.*  si  maris  pniprium  ius  ad  aliquem  pertineat,  «//' 
possidctiH  interdictuin  ei  competere.  Esse  quidem  hoc  inter- 
dictum  ad  privatas  causns  coniparatuni,  non  autem  ml 
publicas.  (in  (juibus  ctiam  ea  comprehenduntur  quic 
iure  gentium  communi  faccrc  possumus)  sed  hie  iain 
agi  dc  iure  fruendo  (juchI  ex  causa  privata  contingat. 
non  puhliea,  sive  cotniiiuni.  Nai  teste  Marciaiio, 
(|uiequi(l  oceiipatuni  est  tt  oeciipnri  potuit."  id  iani  non  ( -1 
iurisgentium.  sieut  est  iDare.  Kxeiiipli  causa,  si  (juis  Liicii! 
lum  aut  ApoUinareni  ifi  private  suo,  quatenus  divertieuluii 
maris  iiieluserant.  jiiseari  prohihuisset,  danduni  illis  iiitt  r 


'  I'liny,  Naliir.ilis  In  t.iri.i  \\.  ,'.l,  170 

•  Miirtiiil.  l'|.i)rr!iiiini.ilii  X,  :io,  IB-.N! 

•  !>,■    V'lliiillir,   ,  ip.    ! 

'  Diirrst    XI. VII.   I'l.   U   (!)•■  iniiini-,   I     Saiir  si  iiiHril). 
'  (  f    iind-    I.  iiajp-   .11 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


82 


Xow  the  same  principle  which  applies  to  navigation 
applies  also  to  fishing,  namely,  that  it  remains  free  and  open 
to  all.  Nevertheless  there  shall  be  no  prejudice  if  any  one 
shall  by  fencing  off  with  stakes  an  inlet  of  the  sea  make  a 
fish  pond  for  himself,  and  so  establish  a  private  preserve. 
Thus  LucuUus  once  brought  the  water  of  the  sea  to  his  villa 
by  cutting  a  tunnel  through  a  mountain  near  Naples.'  I 
suspect  too  that  the  seawater  reservoirs  for  fish  mentioned 
by  Varro  and  Columella  were  of  this  sort.  And  Martial 
had  the  same  thing  in  mind  when  he  says  of  the  Formian 
villa  of  Apollinaris: "  '  Whenever  Nereus  feels  the  power  of 
Aeolus,  the  table  safe  in  its  own  resources  laughs  at  the 
gale '.  Ambrose  also  has  something  to  say  on  the  same 
subject: ' '  You  bring  the  verj'  sea  into  your  estates  that  you 
may  not  lack  for  fish  '.  T^'  the  light  of  all  this  the  meaning 
of  Paulus  is  clear  whc  .  iays  *  that  if  any  one  has  a  private 
riglit  over  the  sea,  the  rule  uti  possidetis  applies.  This  rule 
however  is  applicable  only  to  private  suits,  and  not  to  public 
ones,  among  which  are  also  to  be  included  those  suits  which 
can  l)e  brought  under  the  common  law  of  nations.  But 
lure  the  question  is  one  which  concerns  the  right  ol  use 
arisiri;,'  in  a  private  suit,  but  not  in  a  public  or  common 
MIR'.  For  according  to  the  authority  of  Marcianus  what- 
ever has  l)een  occupied  and  can  be  occupied "  is  no  longer 
sulijtot  to  the  law  of  nations  as  the  sea  is.  Let  us  take  an 
cxaiiiple.  If  any  one  had  pit\cntcd  T.ucullus  or  Apolli- 
naris from  fishing  in  the  private  fish  ponds  which  they  had 
Miadf  liy  inclosing  a  small  portion  of  the  sea,  according  to 
the  opinion  of  Paulus  they  would  have  the  right  of  bringing 


■  I'l  i^v     \»t,      1   lliston-  IX,  i4,  170. 
'  1  !   IT  iiif   \,  ;«>.  Ifl-.'O. 

■  l>i    NiIiiiIIk'.  dip.   'i 

'  l>i!'r-l    XI  VII.    10.    I« 
'  'Ml-   II  )lr    I.    |>«((r    il 


lif 


88 


MARE  LIBERVM 


dictum  Faulus  putavit  non  solum  iniuriarum  actionem,  ob 
causam  scilicet  privatae  possessionis.'  I 

Inuno  in  diverticulo  maris,  sicut  in  diverticulo  fluminis,  ^ 
si  locimi  talem  occuparim,  ibique  piscatus  sini,  maxime  si 
animum  privatim  possidendi  plurium  annorum  continuatione 
testatus  fuerim,  alterum  eodem  iure  uti  prohibebo;  ut  ex 
Marciano  colligimus,  non  aliter  quam  in  lacu  qui  nui 
doniinii  est.  Quod  verum  quam  diu  durat  occupatio. 
quemadmodum  in  litore  antea  diximus.  Extra  diverticulum 
idem  non  erit,  ne  scilicet  communis  usus  impediatur.' 

Ante  aedes  igitur  meas  aut  praetoriuni  ut  piscari  aliquem 
prohibeant  usurpatum  quidem  est,  sed  nullo  iure,  adto 
(juidem  ut  Vlpianus  contempta  ea  usurpatione  si  quis  pro- 
hil)eatur  iniuriarum  dicat  agi  posse.'  Hoc  Imperator  Lto 
(cuius  Legibus  non  utinmrj  contra  iuris  rationem  mutavit 
vtiiuitque  npoHvpa,  hoc  est,  vestibula  maritima  eorum  esse 
propria,  qui  orani  hal)itarent,  ibicjue  eos  ius  piscandi  habere; ' 
quod  tamen  ita  proeedere  voluit,  ut  septis  (juibusdani 
remoratoriis  (juas  «>o^i!  (iraeci  voeant,  locus  ille  occupa- 
retur;  existinians  nimirum  non  fore  ut  quis  exiguam  maris 
j)ortioneiii  altcri  irivideret  <jui  ipse  tott)  inari  ad  piscan<iiiiii 
adniitteretur.  Certe  ut  <|uis  inagnaiu  maris  partem,  etiaiii 
si  possit,  {iul>lieis  utiiitutibus  (■rij)iat.  non  tolerandae  tst 
miproliitatis,    in    quam    nierito    Vir    Sanctus    invehitur: 


'  !»i)frst   XI  IV,  3,  7   (IV  dlvrrsis,  I..  .Si  i)iiiM|ii:im) 

=  !ii(fi-vt   XI. I,  :).  45   (l)r  UMicnpioniliii^,  I.    l'nn-M'ri|iliiO 

hi,ii-i.l   XIA'll,  10,  i:t  (l)«-  iiiiiirlis,  I.    Iniuriariiiii,  ^  >i  quis  roe). 
•  Niivdiii  Icimj^,   l(i.>,   Kti,  I(»t;  if.  I'liiiUiiiiii   .\1\,   1. 
'  1  li'xaiiHT.iii    \  ,   111,  .'7. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


88 


An  injunction,  not  merely  an  action  for  damages  based  on 

private  ownership.' 

Indeed,  if  I  shall  have  staked  off  such  an  inclosure  in  an 

inlet  of  the  sea,  just  as  in  a  branch  of  a  river,  and  have 

fished  there,  especially  if  by  doing  so  continuously  for  many 

years  I  shall  have  given  proof  of  my  intention  to  establish 

private  ownership,  I  shall  certainly  prevent  any  one  else 

from  enjoying  the  same  rights.    I  gather  from  Marcianus 

that  this  case  is  identical  with  that  of  the  ownership  of  a 

lake,  and  it  is  true  however  long  occupation  lasts,  as  we  have 

said  al)ovc  about  the  shore.     But  outside  of  an  inlet  this 

will  not  hold,  for  then  the  common  use  of  the  sea  might  be 

liindored." 

Therefore  if  any  one  is  prevented  from  fishing  in  front 

of  my  town  house  or  country  scat,  it  is  a  usurpation,  but  an 

illtgal  one.  although  Ulpian,  who  rather  makes  light  of  this 

usurpation,  does  say  that  if  any  one  is  so  prevented  he  can 

hririfj  an  action  for  damages.'     The  Emperor  Leo.  whose 

laws  we  do  not  use,  contrary  to  the  intent  of  the  law, 

changed  this,  and  declared  tiiat  the  entrances,  or  vestibules 

as  it  were,  to  the  sea,  were  the  private  jiroperty  of  those  who 

inhabited  the  shore,  and  that  they  had  the  right  of  fishing 

there'    Howt'\er  he  attached  this  condition,  that  the  place 

should  be  (KTupied  by  certain  jetty  or  pile  constructions, 

such  as  the  Greeks  call  f'itox»',   thinking  doubtless  that  no 

one  who  was  himself  allowed  to  fish  anywhere  in  the  sea 

would  grudge  any  one  else  a  small  portion  of  it.     To  Ik 

Mirc  it  would  Ik?  an  intolerable  outrage  for  any  one  to 

Mi.itfli  away,  even  if  he  could  do  so,  from  public  use  a  large 

ana  of  the  sea;  an  act  which  is  justly  reprehended  by  the 

Holy  .Man.    who  says:  'The  lords  of  the  earth  claim  for 

'■  i)i(f.>t  \i.iv,  ;i,  7. 
l><u<--\  XI  I.  X  W, 
\hfnt  XI. VII,  10.  i;j. 

'  Ninfls  i>r   Ia-«.    1(1.' 
llixBtnrron  V,  Id,  , 


IS- 

it 


IO:i.  104;  Sw  also  CuJHS  XIV,  1. 

■  l^>l.    \nil'rii'-  (i-    )):!;»'ii).  Hislmp  of  Milan,  i- 


riinul  I 


34 


MARE  LIBERVM 


'SPATIA  MARIS  sibi  vindicant  IVRE  MANCIPll, 
pisciumque  iura  sicut  vernaculorum  conditione  sibi  servitii 
subiecta  commemorant.  Iste,  inquit,  SINVS  maris  mcus 
est ;  ille  alterius.    Dividunt  elementa  sibi  potentes '. 

Est  igitur  Mare  in  numero  earum  rerum  quae  in  com- 
mercio  non  sunt,*  hoc  est,  quae  proprii  iuris  fieri  non  possunt. 
Vnde  sequitur  si  proprie  loquamur,  nullam  Maris  partem 
in  territorio  populi  alicuius  posse  censeri.  Quod  ipsum  Pla- 
centinus  sensisse  videtur,  cum  dixit:  Mare  ita  esse  com- 
mune, ut  in  nuUius  dominio  sit  nisi  solius  Dei;  et  loanncs 
Faber,  cum  mare  asserit  relictum  in  suo  iure,  et  esse  pri- 
maevo,  quo  omnia  erant  comnmnia.'  Alioquin  nihil  dif- 
fcrrent  quae  sunt  omnium  conmmnia  ab  his  quae  publira 
proprie  dicuntur,  ut  mare  a  flumine.  Flumen  populus 
occupare  potuit,  ut  inclusum  finibus  suis,  mare  non  potuit. 

Territoria  autem  sunt  ex  occupationibus  populorum,  ut 
privata  dominia  ex  occupationibus  singulorum.  Vidit  hoc 
Cclsus,  qui  clare  satis  distinguit  inter  litora,'  quae  Popuhis 
Romanus  occupare  potuit,  ita  tamen  ut  usui  communi  non 
nof*  etur,  et  mare  quod  pristinam  naturam  rctinuit.  Ncc 
ull;       X  diversum  indicat/    Quae  vero  leges  a  contrariae 


Litorum);  Digest  XIV,  2,  9  (I>  I<ir<^ 


!      .fllus  IV.  8. 

.loonnrs  Knbrr  on  Inititutcs  II,  I 

'?!•  ■•illi,  !        ^    luffif). 

'  ni^,<  XI, III.  8,  3  (\f  quill  in  loco  piiMico.  I..  I.ifora). 

•  Difrrst  V.  I.  9  (IV  imiidis  I,.  Insulnr);  XXXIX.  4.  IS  (Dc  puhliraris 
I,.  CatBur);  CilosB.  on  nicest  I,  H.  i  (De  divisionc  rprum,  L.  Quardun) ;  Instltuir* 
II,  I;  Boldus  on  (juaedam  (above). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


84 


themselves  a  wide  expanse  of  sea  by  jus  mancipii,  and  they 
regard  the  right  of  fishing  as  a  servitude  over  which  their 
right  is  the  same  as  that  over  their  slaves.  That  gulf,  says 
one,  belongs  to  me,  and  that  gulf  to  some  one  else.  They 
divide  the  very  elements  among  themselves,  these  great 
men'! 

Therefore  the  sea  is  one  of  those  things  which  is  not  an 
article  of  merchandise,'  and  which  cannot  become  private 
property.  Hence  it  follows,  to  speak  strictly,  that  no  part 
of  the  sea  can  be  considered  as  the  territory  of  any  people 
whatsoever.  Placentinus  seems  to  have  recognized  this 
when  he  said :  '  The  sea  is  a  thing  so  clearly  conmion  to  all, 
that  it  cannot  be  the  property  of  any  one  save  God  alone '. 
Johannes  Faber '  also  asserts  that  the  sea  has  been  left  sui 
juris,  and  remains  in  the  primitive  condition  where  all  things 
were  common,  i.  it  were  otherwise  there  would  be  no  dif- 
ference between  the  things  which  are  '  common  to  all ',  and 
those  which  are  strictly  termed  '  public  ';  no  difference,  that 
is,  between  the  sea  and  a  river,  A  nation  can  take  posses- 
sion of  a  river,  as  it  is  inclosed  within  their  boundaries,  with 
the  sea,  they  cannot  do  so. 

Now,  ])ublic  territory  arises  out  of  the  occupation  of 
nations,  just  as  private  property  arises  out  of  the  occupa- 
tion of  individuals.  This  is  recognized  by  Celsus,  who  has 
drawn  a  sharp  distinction  between  the  shores  of  the  sea,* 
which  the  Roman  people  could  occupy  in  such  a  way  that 
its  common  use  was  not  harmed,  and  the  sea  itself,  which 
retained  its  primitive  nature.  In  fact  no  law  intimates  a 
contrary  view.*    Such  laws  as  are  cited  by  writers  who  are  of 


•  Don.  llus  IV,  6. 

'  <lii  IristitiitM  II,  li  DifTPst  XIV,  .',  9  (Johdniips  Talicr  (c.  l.'.Tn.v  IfiJO) 
«Hs  l<is.i|ii|i  of  Viennii,  iinil  t'liurf  pri'inlHT  lo  l',in|icri>r  h'rrilinand  Hi-  wn's 
kiiKwn  piipularly  ns  •  Miillcus  H.-irrrticoriiin '|. 

■  niiMst  XI. Ill,  8,  :i. 

•  l)ijf"-l  V,  I,  9;  XXXIX,  4.  1A;  (iloss.iliir-!  iin  Di^rr  i  I,  ■*,  .';  Iiixtilutrs 
H.  I;    H;(liliiN  (in  I.,  (jiiiinlaiii,  in  l)i(fi  hI   I,  f,  J. 


85 


MARE  LIBERVM 


sententiae  auctoribus  citantur,  aut  de  insuHs  loquiintur, 
quas  clarum  est  oecupari  potuisse,  aut  de  portu  qui  non 
communis  est,  sed  proprie  publicus. 

Qui  vero  dicunt  mare  aliquod  esse  Imperi  Roman  i, 
dictum  suum  ita  interpretantur,  ut  dicant  ius  illud  in  mare 
ultra  protectionem  et  iurisdictionem  non  procedere;  quod 
illi  ius  a  proprietate  distinguunt;  nee  forte  satis  animadver- 
tunt  idipsum  quod  Populus  Romanus  classes  praesidiu 
navigantium  disponere  potuit,  et  deprehensos  in  mari 
piratas  punire,  non  ex  proprio,  sed  ex  communi  iure  acci- 
disse,  quod  et  aliae  liberae  gentes  in  mari  habent.  Illud 
interim  fatemur,  potuisse  inter  gentes  aliquas  convenire,  ut 
capti  in  maris  hac  vel  ilia  parte,  huius  aut  illius  reipublicac 
iudicium  subirent,  atque  ita  ad  commoditatem  distinguendac 
iurisdictionis  in  mari  fines  describi,  quod  ipsos  quidem  eaiii 
sibi  legem  ferentes  obligat,'  at  alios  populos  non  item; 
neque  locum  alicuius  proprium  facit,  sed  in  personas  coii- 
trahentium  ius  constituit. 

Quae  distinctio  ut  naturali  ration!  consf^ntanea  est,  ita 
Vlpiani  responso  (]Uodam  comprobatur,  qui  rogatus  an 
(luoruin  praediorum  maritimorum  dominus,  alteri  eorum 
(juckI  venderet  ser\itutem  potuisset  imponere,  ne  inde  in 
ccrto  maris  loco  piscari  liceret,  respondet:  rem  quidciii 
ipsam,  mare  scilicet,  servitute  nulla  affici  potuisse.  quia  per 
naturam  boc  omnibus  pateret,  sed  cum  bona  fides  contractus 
legem  venditionis  servari  exposcerct,  personas  possidcntiuir. 
et  in  ius  eorum  succedentiuni  per  istam   legem   obligari. 


'  hnliltis,  Quiliii^  mmlis  fruili  uniittuntiir,  o.  In  prinripio,  2  rol. ;  CihIi'  M. 
i:».  1;  Aii(p-lu»  "II  Hip>l  Xl.\  II,  ll»,  U  (Do  iiiiiirii^,  1,.  Sun.);  l)i(tci,t  VIII,  t,  M 
(C'oiiiiiiunm  |>r»filu)ruiii,  I,    \>nilitor  fimdi)  rt  4  (L.  Cuv.ri). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


85 


i 


the  contrary  opinion  apply  either  to  islands,  which  evidently 
could  be  occupied,  or  to  harbors,  which  are  not  '  common  *, 
but  '  public  ',  that  is,  '  national '. 

Now  those  who  say  that  a  certain  sea  belonged  to  the 
Roman  people  explain  their  statement  to  mean  that  the 
right  of  the  Romans  did  not  extend  beyond  protection  and 
jurisdiction;  this  right  they  distinguish  from  ownership. 
Perchance  they  do  not  pay  sufficient  attention  to  the  fact 
that  although  the  Roman  People  were  able  to  maintain  fleets 
for  the  protection  of  navigation  and  to  punish  pirates  cap- 
tured on  the  sea,  it  was  not  done  by  private  right,  but  by  the 
common  right  which  other  free  peoples  also  enjoy  on  the 
sea.  We  recognize,  however,  that  certain  peoples  have 
agreed  that  pirates  captured  in  this  or  in  that  part  of  the 
sea  should  come  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  state  or  of 
that,  and  further  that  certain  convenient  limits  of  distinct 
jurisdiction  have  been  apportioned  on  the  sea.  Now,  this 
agreement  does  bind  those  who  are  parties  to  it,'  but  it  has 
no  binding  force  on  other  nations,  nor  does  it  make  the  de- 
limited area  of  the  sea  the  private  property  of  any  one. 
It  merely  constitutes  a  personal  right  between  contracting 
parties. 

This  distinction  so  conformable  to  natural  reason  is  also 
confirmed  by  a  reply  once  made  by  Ulpian.  Upon  being 
asked  whether  the  owner  of  two  maritime  estates  could  on 
silling  cither  of  them  impose  on  it  such  a  servitude  as  the 
prohibition  of  fishing  in  a  particular  part  of  the  sea,  he 
ri[)!ied  that  the  thing  in  question,  evidently  the  sea, 
could  not  be  subjected  to  a  servitude,  because  it  was  by 
nature  open  to  all  persons;  but  that  since  a  contract  made 
in  funxl  faith  demands  thct  the  condition  of  a  sale  be  rc- 
s{)cctcd.  the  present  possessors  and  those  who  succeed  to 

'  lUldus,  Quihus  mndis  foiiili  umittimliir,  clmptiT  iKirinniiiit  In  iirinciplo, 
wmul  .•.ilumin  Code  XI,  13,  1;  Aiip'li  on  Di^esl  XI.VII,  10.  U;  l)i^{.■^t  VIM, 
t.  II  Htid  4. 


I 

"l 

ii 


If 


i-l' 


I  , 


30 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Veruni  est  loqui  lurisconsultmn  de  praediis  privatis,  et  lege 
privata,  scd  in  territorio  et  lege  populorum  eadem  hie  est 
ratio,  quia  populi  respectu  totius  generis  humani  privatoruni 
locum  obtinent. 

Similiter  reditus  qui  in  piscationes  maritimas  constituti 
Regalium  numero  censentur,  non  rem,  hoc  est  mare,  aut  pis- 
cationem,  sed  personas  obligant/  Quare  subditi,  in  quns 
legem  ferendi  potestas  Reipublicae  aut  Principi  ex  consensu 
competit,  ad  onera  ista  compelli  forte  potcrunt;  sed  exteris 
ius  piscandi  ubique  immune  esse  debet,  ne  servitus  imponatur 
mari  quod  servire  non  potest. 

Non  enim  maris  eadem  quae  fluminis  ratio  est:'  quod 
cum  sit  publicum,  id  est  populi,  ius  etiam  in  eo  piscandi  a 
populo  aut  principe  concedi  aut  locari  potest,  ita  ut  ei  qui 
conduxit,  etiam  interdictuni  Veteres  dederint,  de  loco  publico 
fruendo,  nddita  condicione  si  is  cui  locandi  ius  fuerit,  frucn- 
dum  alicui  locaverit ; '  quae  condicio  in  mari  evenire  non 
potest.  Ceterum  qui  ipsam  piscationem  numerant  inter 
Regalia,  ne  quidem  ilium  locum  quem  interpretabantur  satis 
inspexerunt,  quod  Iserniam  et  Alvotum  non  latuit. 

Dcmonstratum  est  *  nee  populo  ncc  privato  cuipiam  ius 


•  C.  Quae  sint  Refrnlia,  in  Fciidis. 

*  nallnis,  IV  prufsotiptioniliiis  IV,  5;  I,  q.  fi,  n.  4. 

"  Dijrpst    XI.VII,   10,   i:»   (De  iniuriis,  L.   Iniuriarum,  §   7,  v.  conductori)^ 
XLIII,  9,  1   (I)c  loco  publico  fruendo). 
*Cf.  note  1. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  86 

their  rights  were  bound  to  observe  that  condition.  It  is  true 
that  the  jurist  is  speaking  of  private  estate  and  of  private 
Uw,  but  in  speaking  here  of  the  territory  of  peoples  and 
of  public  law  the  same  reasoning  applies,  because  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  whole  himian  race  peoples  are  treated 
as  individuals. 

Similarly,  revenues  levied  on  maritime  fisheries  are  held 
to  belong  to  the  Crown,  but  they  do  not  bind  the  sea  itself 
or  the  fisheries,  but  only  the  persons  engaged  in  fishing.' 
Wherefore  subjects,  for  whom  a  state  or  a  ruler  is  by  com- 
mon consent  competent  to  make  laws,  will  perhaps  be  com- 
pelled to  bear  such  charges,  but  so  far  as  other  persons  are 
concerned  the  right  of  fishing  ought  everywhere  to  be 
exempt  from  tolls,  lest  a  servitude  be  imposed  upon  the 
sea,  which  is  not  susceptible  to  a  servitude. 

The  case  of  the  sea  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  a  river," 
for  as  a  river  is  the  property  of  a  nation,  the  right  to  fish 
in  it  can  be  passed  or  leased  by  the  nation  or  by  the  ruler, 
in  such  a  way  (and  the  like  is  true  with  the  ancients)  that 
the  lessee  enjoys  the  operation  of  the  injunction  dc  loco 
publico  frucndo  by  virtue  of  the  clause  '  He  who  has  the 
right  to  lease  has  leased  the  exclusive  right  of  enjoyment  '.* 
Such  a  condition  cannot  arise  in  respect  to  the  sea.  Finally 
tliose  who  count  fishing  among  the  properties  of  the  Crown 
have  not  examined  carefully  enough  the  very  passage 
which  they  cite  to  prove  their  contention,  as  Isernia  *  and 
Alvotus  t  have  noticed. 

It  has  therefore  been  demonstrated  *  that  neither  a  nation 
nor  an  individual  can  establish  any  right  of  private  owner- 


i 

!i 


t'. 

ii 


ir 


'('.  Quar  sint  Rrgalia,  in  Frudis. 
'  Halbus,  Dc  praesrripUoniljus  IV,  5;  I,  q.  6,  n.  *. 
■  Diftrst  XLVII,  10,  13;  XLIII,  0,  I. 
'  Si-o  note  I. 

•  I  Andrea  d'Isemia    (c.    1480-lSi3),   an   Italian   commentator,  called   often 
Kfiulistarum  Pntriarclia.] 

t  [Probably  a  misprint  for  Alrarus  (Alvarez).] 


MKROCOrv   RES01UT»N   TIST  CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No   2) 


II  j£ 

11.25 


17JB 


ki 


lb 

lit 


132 


1.4 


|22 
■  2.0 

il.8 

i  1.6 


A 


/ffPUED  ItVHGE    In 

;  '16'!    482      ;iVV>      P».of>ff 
(  .'16)   JM      ^=»fl9      Co, 


37 


MARE  LIBERVM 


aliquod  proprium  in  ipsum  mare  (nam  diverticulum  excipi- 
mus)  competere  posse,  cum  occupationem  nee  natura,  nee 
usus  publici  ratio  permittat.  Huius  autem  rei  causa 
instituta  f uerat  haec  disputatio,  ut  appareret  Lusitanos  mare 
quo  ad  Indos  navigatur  sui  iuris  non  fecisse.  Nam  utraque 
ratio  quae  proprietatem  impedit,  in  hac  causa  est  quam  in 
ceteris  omnibus  iniinito  efiicacior.  Quod  in  aliis  difficile 
videtur,  in  hac  omnino  fieri  non  potest ;  quod  in  aliis  iniquum 
iudicamus,  in  hac  summe  barbarum  est,  atque  inhumanum. 

Non  de  mari  interiore  hie  agimus,  quod  terris  undique 
infusum  alicubi  etiam  fluminis  latitudinem  non  excedit,  de 
quo  tamen  satis  constat  locutos  Romanos  lurisconsultos,  cum 
nobiles  illas  adversus  privatam  avaritiam  sententias  edide- 
runt;  de  Oceano  quaeritur,  quem  immensum,  infinitum, 
rerum  parentem,  caelo  conterminum  antiquitas  vocat,  cuius 
perpetuo  humore  non  fontes  tantum  et  flumina  et  maria,  sed 
nubes,  sed  ipsa  quodammodo  sidera  pasci  veteres  credide- 
runt ;  qui  denique  per  reciprocas  aestuum  vices  terram  banc 
humani  generis  sedem  ambiens,  neque  teneri  neque  includi 
potest,  et  possidet  verius  quam  possidetur. 

In  hoc  autem  Oceano  non  de  sinu  aut  freto,  nee  de  omni 
quidem  eo  quod  e  litore  conspici  potest  controversia  est. 
Vindicant  si'  Lusitani  quicquid  duos  Orbes  interiacet,  tantis 
spatiis  discretos,  ut  plurimis  saeculis  famam  sui  non  potucrint 
transmittere.    Quod  si  Castellanorum,  qui  in  eadem  sunt 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


37 


ship  over  the  sea  itself  (I  except  inlets  of  the  sea),  inas- 
much as  its  occupation  is  not  permissible  either  by  iiature 
or  on  grounds  of  public  utility.  The  discussion  of  this  mat- 
ter has  been  taken  up  for  this  reason,  namely,  that  it  may 
be  seen  that  the  Portuguese  have  not  established  private 
ownership  over  the  sea  by  which  people  go  to  the  East 
Indies.  For  the  two  reasons  that  stand  in  the  way  of 
ownership  are  in  this  case  infinitely  more  powerful  than  in 
all  others.  That  which  in  other  cases  seems  difficult,  is  here 
absolutely  impossible ;  and  what  in  other  cases  we  recognize 
as  unjust  is  here  most  barbarous  and  inhuman. 

The  question  at  issue  then  is  not  one  that  concerns  an 
INNER  SEA,  one  which  is  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  the 
land  and  at  some  places  does  not  even  exceed  a  river  in 
breadth,  although  it  is  well  known  that  the  Roman  jurists 
cited  such  an  inner  sea  in  their  famous  opinions  condenm- 
ing  private  avarice.  Xo!  the  question  at  issue  is  the 
OUTER  SEA,  the  OCEAN,  that  expanse  of  water  which 
antiquity  describes  as  the  immense,  the  infinite,  bounded 
only  by  the  heavens,  parent  of  all  things;  the  ocean  which 
the  ancients  believed  was  perpetually  supplied  with  water 
not  only  by  fountains,  rivers,  and  seas,  but  by  the  clouds, 
and  by  the  very  stars  of  heaven  themselves;  the  ocean 
which,  although  surrounding  this  earth,  the  home  of  the 
human  race,  with  the  ebb  and  flow  of  its  tides,  can  be  neither 
seized  nor  inclosed;  nay,  which  rather  possessej  the  earth 
than  is  by  it  possessed. 

Further,  the  question  at  issue  does  not  concern  a  gulf 
or  a  strait  in  this  ocean,  nor  even  all  the  expanse  of  si\a 
which  is  visible  from  the  shore,  [But  consider  this!!]  The 
Portuguese  claim  as  their  own  the  whole  expanse  of  the  sea 
which  separates  two  parts  of  the  world  so  far  distant  the 
one  from  the  other,  that  in  all  the  preceding  centuries 
neither  one  has  so  much  as  heard  of  the  other.  Indeed,  if 
we  take  into  account  the  share  of  the  Spaniards,  whose  claim 


i 


* 

«'.- 

»* 


38 


MARE  LIBERVM 


causa,  portio  accedat,  parvo  minus  omnis  Oceanus  duobus 
populis  mancipatus  est,  aliis  tot  gentibus  ad  Septentrionum 
redactis  angustias ;  multumque  decepta  est  Natura,  quae  cum 
elementum  illud  omnibus  circumfudit,  omnibus  etiam  suffec- 
turum  credidit.  In  tanto  niari  si  quis  usu  promiscuo  solum 
sibi  imperium  et  dicionem  exciperet,  tamen  immodicae  do- 
minationis  afFectator  haberetur;  si  quis  piscatu  arceret  alios, 
insanae  cupiditatis  notam  non  efFugeret.  At  qui  etiam 
navigatum  impedit,  quo  nihil  ipsi  perit,  de  eo  quid  statuemus? 
Si  quis  ab  igni  qui  totus  suus  est,  ignem  capere,  lumen 
suo  de  lumine,  alterum  prohiberet,  lege  hunc  humanae  so- 
cietatis  reum  peragerem:  quia  vis  ea  est  istius  naturae: 

Ft  niJiilominus  ipsi  luceat,  cum  illi  accenderit^ 

Quid  ni  enim  quando  sine  detrimento  suo  potest,  alteri 
communicet,  in  iis  quae  sunt  accipienti  utilia,  danti  non 
molesta." 

Haec  sunt  quae  Philosophi '  non  alienis  tantum,  sed  et 
ingratis  praestari  volunt.  Quae  vero  in  rebus  privatis 
invidia  est,  eadem  in  re  communi  non  potest  non  esse 
immanitas,  improbissimum  enim  hoc  est,  quod  naturae 
instituto,  consensu  gentium,  meum  non  minus  quam  tuuin 
est,  id  te  ita  intercipere,  ut  ne  usum  quidem  mihi  concedas, 
quo  concesso  nihilominus  id  tuum  sit,  quam  antea  fuit. 

«  Ennius:  '  Nilillo  mJnus  ipsi  lucet,  cum  illi  occenderit '.  Vaiilen,*  Fab.  Inc. 
399  (Telcphus?). 

'  Ciorro,  De  offlriis  I,  SI. 

■Seneca,  Di-  l)emri<ii.s  III,  jn  [IV,  »]. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


38 


is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Portuguese,  only  a  little  less  than 
the  whole  ocean  is  found  to  be  subject  to  two  nations,  while 
all  the  rest  of  the  peoples  in  the  world  are  restricted  to  the 
narrow  bounds  of  the  northern  seas.  Nature  was  greatly 
deceived  if  when  she  spread  the  sea  around  all  peoples  she 
believed  that  it  would  also  be  adequate  for  the  use  of  them 
all.  If  in  a  thing  so  vast  as  the  sea  a  man  were  to  reserve 
to  himself  from  general  use  nothing  more  than  mere  sov- 
ereignty, still  he  would  be  considered  a  seeker  after  un- 
reasonable power.  If  a  man  were  to  enjo'n  other  people 
from  fishing,  he  would  not  escape  the  reproach  of  monstrous 
greed.  But  the  man  who  even  prevents  navigation,  a  thing 
which  means  no  loss  to  himself,  what  are  we  to  say  of  him? 
If  any  person  should  prevent  any  other  nerson  from 
taking  fire  from  his  fire  or  a  light  from  his  torch,  I  should 
accuse  him  of  violating  the  law  of  human  society,  because 
that  is  the  essence  of  its  very  nature,  as  Ennius  has  said : 

"  No  less  shines  his,  when  he  his  friend's  hath  lit" ' 

Why  then,  when  it  can  be  done  without  any  prejudice 
to  his  o^vn  interests,  will  not  one  person  share  with  another 
things  which  are  useful  to  the  recipient,  and  no  loss  to  the 
giver?  *  These  are  services  which  the  ancient  philosophers ' 
thought  ought  to  be  rendered  not  only  to  foreigners  but 
even  to  the  ungrateful.  But  the  same  act  which  when 
l>rivate  possessions  are  in  question  is  jealousy  can  be  nothing 
but  cruelty  when  a  common  possession  is  in  question.  For 
it  is  most  outrageous  for  you  to  appropriate  a  thing,  which 
both  by  ordinance  of  nature  and  by  common  consent  is  as 
much  mine  as  yours,  so  exclusively  that  you  will  not  grant 
me  a  right  of  use  in  it  which  leaves  it  no  less  yours  than  it 
was  before. 

'  [Quoted  In  Cicrro,  De  offlciis  1,  51,  and  here  token  from  Walter  Mlller'i 
(ImI))  transUtion,  page  55.] 

•  Cloero,  De  officiis  I,  51. 

*  iJcncca,  Oe  beneflciis  IV,  98. 


'I- 


39 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Turn  vero  etiam  qui  alienis  incunibunt,  aut  communia 
iiitercipiunt,  certa  quadam  possessione  se  tuentur.  Quia  enim 
prima,  ut  dixiiuus,  occupatio  res  proprias  fecit,  idcirco  imagi- 
nem  quandam  domiiiii  praefert  quamvis  iniusta  detentio. 
At  Lusitani  num  sicuti  terras  solemus,  sic  mare  illud  ini- 
positis  praediis  ita  undique  cinxerunt,  ut  in  ipsorum  manu 
esset  quos  vellent  excludere?  An  vero  tantum  hoc  abest,  ut 
ipsi  etiam,  cum  adversus  alios  populos  mundum  dividuiit, 
non  ullis  limitibus  aut  n^iura,  aut  manu  positis,  sed  imagi- 
naria  quadam  linea  se  tueantur?  quod  si  recipitur  et  dimensio 
talis  ad  possidendum  valet,  iamdudum  nobis  Geometrac 
terras,  Astronomi  etiam  caelum  eriperent. 

Vbi  hie  igitur  est  ista,  sine  qua  nulla  dominia  coeperunt, 
corporis  ad  corpus  adiunctio?  Nimirum  apparet  in  nulla 
re  verius  dici  posse,  quod  Doctores  nostri  prodiderunt,' 
Mare  cum  sit  incomprehensibile,  non  minus  quam  aer, 
nullius  populi  bonis  potuisse  applicari. 

Si  vero  ante  alios  navigasse,  et  viam  quodammodo 
aperuisse,  hoc  vocant  occupare,  quid  esse  potest  magis 
ridiculum?  Nam  cum  nulla  pars  sit  maris,  in  quam  non 
aliquis  primus  ingressus  sit,  sequetur  omnem  navigationem 
ab  aliquo  esse  occupatam,  Ita  undique  excludimur.  Quin 
et  illi  qui  terrarum  orbem  circumvecti  sunt,  totum  sibi 
Oceanum    acquisivisse   dicendi    erunt.      Sed    nemo    nescit 

'Johannes  Fabcr  on  Institutes  II,  1,  5  (I)c  rcrum  divisionc,  §  Litorum). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


89 


Nevertheless,  even  those  who  lay  burdens  upon  foreign- 
ers, or  appropriate  things  common  to  all,  rely  upon  a  pos- 
session which  is  to  some  extent  real.  For  since  original 
occupation  created  private  property,  therefore  detention  of 
a  thing,  though  unjust,  gives  an  appearance  of  ownership. 
But  have  the  Portuguese  completely  covered  the  ocean,  as 
we  are  wont  to  do  on  land,  by  laying  out  estates  on  it  in 
such  a  way  that  they  have  the  right  to  exclude  from  that 
ocean  whom  they  will?  Not  at  all!  On  the  contrary,  they 
are  so  far  from  having  done  so,  that  when  they  divide  up 
the  world  to  the  disadvantage  of  other  nations,  they  cannot 
even  defend  their  action  by  showing  any  boundaries  either 
natural  or  artificial,  but  are  compelled  to  fall  back  upon 
some  imaginary  line.  Indeed,  if  that  were  a  recognized 
method,  and  such  a  delimitation  of  boundaries  were  suffi- 
cient to  make  possession  valid,  our  geometers  long  since 
would  have  got  possession  of  the  face  of  the  earth,  our 
astronomers  of  the  very  skies. 

But  where  in  this  case  is  that  corporal  possession  or 
physical  appropriation,  without  which  no  ownerships  arise? 
There  appears  to  be  nothing  truer  than  what  our  learned 
jurists  have  enunciated,  namely,*  that  since  the  sea  is  just  as 
insusceptible  of  physical  appropriation  as  the  air,  it  cannot 
be  attached  to  the  possessions  of  any  nation. 

But  if  the  Portuguese  call  occupying  the  sea  merely  to 
have  sailed  over  it  before  other  people,  and  to  have,  as  it 
were,  opened  the  way,  could  anything  in  the  world  be  more 
ridiculous?  For,  as  there  is  no  part  of  the  sea  on  which 
some  person  has  not  already  sailed,  it  will  necessarily  follow 
that  every  route  of  navigation  is  occupied  by  some  one. 
Therefore  we  peoples  of  today  are  all  absolutely  excluded. 
Why  will  not  those  men  who  have  circumnavigated  the 
globe  be  justified  in  saying  that  they  have  acquired  for 
themselves  the  possession  of  the  whole  ocean  1     But  there 

'Johannes  Fuber  on  Iniititutes  11,  1,  5. 


II 


n, 


jI 


40 


MARE  LIBERVM 


navem  per  mare  transeuntem  non  plus  iuris,  quam  vestigii 
relinquere.  Verum  etiam  quod  sibi  sumunt  neminem  ante 
ipsos  eum  Oceanum  navigasse,  id  mininie  verum  est. 
Magna  enim  pars  eius  de  quo  agitur  maris,  ambitu 
iMauritaniae,  iam  olim  navigata  est;  ulterior  et  in  orientem 
vergens  victoriis  :Magni  Alexandri  lustrata  est,  usque  in 
Arabicum  sinum.* 

Olim  autem  banc  navigationem  Gaditanis  percognitain 
fuisse,  multa  argumento  sunt.    Caio  Caesare  Augusti  filio 
in  Arabico  sinu  res  gerente  signa  naviimi  ex  Hispaniensibus 
naufragiis  agnita.     Et   quod  Caelius  Antipater  tradidit. 
vidisse  se  qui  ex  Hispania  in  Aethiopiam  commercii  gratia 
navigasset.    Etiam  Arabibus,  si  verum  est,  quod  Cornelius 
Nepos  testatus  est,  Eudoxum  quendam  sua  aetata  cum 
Lathyrum  Regem  Alexandriae  fugeret,  Arabico  sinu  egres- 
sum    Gades    usque    pervectum.      Poenos    autem,    qui    re 
maritima  plurimum  valuerunt,  eum  Oceanum  non  ignorasse 
longe  clarissimmn  est,   cum  Hanno  Carthaginis  potentia 
florente  circumvectus  a  Gadibus  ad  finem  Arabiae,  praeter- 
navigato  scilicet  promontorio  quod  nunc  Bonae  Spei  dicitur. 
(vetus  videtur  nomen  Hesperion  ceras  fuisse)  omne  id  iter, 
situmque  litoris  et  insularum  scripto  complcxus  sit,  testa- 
tusque  ad  ultimum  non  mare  sibi,  sed  commeatum  defuisse. 
Ab  Arabico  autem  sinu  ad  Indiam,  Indicique  Ocean! 
insulas,  et  auream  usque  Chersonesum,  quam  esse  lapaneni 
credunt    plerique,    etiam    re    Romana    florente    navigari 
solitum,  iter  a  Plinio  descriptum,*  legationes  ab  Indis  ad 

'  Pliny,  Xaturalis     '      -ia  II.  69;  VI,  27  [(31)  Vol.  1,  pp.  482-488  MayholT]; 
Pomponius  Meln,  Dr  situ  orbis  III. 

■Pliny,  Naturali-s  historla  VI,  30  (23). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


40 


is  not  a  single  person  in  the  world  who  does  not  know  that 
a  ship  sailing  through  the  sea  leaves  behind  it  no  more 
legal  right  than  it  does  a  track.  And  as  for  the  assumption 
of  the  Portuguese  that  no  one  has  sailed  that  ocean  before 
themselves,  that  is  anything  but  true.  For  a  great  part  of 
that  sea  near  JMorocco,  which  is  in  dispute,  had  already  been 
navigated  long  before,  and  the  sea  as  far  east  as  the  Arabian 
gulf  has  been  made  famous  by  the  victories  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  as  both  Pliny  and  Mela  tell  us.' 

There  is  also  much  to  substantiate  the  belief  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Cadiz  were  well  acquainted  long  ago  with 
this  route,  because  when  Gains  Caesar,*  the  son  of  Augustus, 
held  command  in  the  Arabian  gulf,  pieces  were  found  of 
shipwrecks  recognized  as  Spanish.  Caelius  Antipater  also 
has  told  us  in  his  writings  that  he  himself  saw  a  Spaniard 
who  had  sailed  from  Spain  to  Ethiopia  on  a  commercial 
voyage.  Also  the  Arabians  knew  those  seas,  if  the  testi- 
mony of  Cornelius  Nepos  is  to  be  believed,  because  he  says 
that  in  his  own  day  a  certain  Eudoxus,  fleeing  from  Lathyrus, 
king  of  Alexandria,  sailed  from  the  Arabian  gulf  and 
finally  reached  Cadiz.  However,  by  far  the  most  famous 
example  is  that  cf  the  Carthaginians.  Those  most  famous 
mariners  were  well  acquainted  with  that  sea,  because  Hanno, 
when  Carthage  was  at  the  height  of  her  power,  sailing  from 
Cadiz  to  the  farthest  confines  of  Arabia,  and  doubling  the 
promontory  now  known  as  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  (the 
ancient  name  reems  to  have  been  Hesperion  Ceras),  de- 
scribed in  a  book  the  entire  route  he  had  taken,  the  appear- 
ance of  the  coasts,  and  the  location  of  the  islands,  declaring 
that  at  the  farthest  point  he  reached  the  sea  had  not  yet 
given  out  but  his  provisions  had. 

Pliny's  description  of  the  route  to  the  East,-  the  em- 

' Pliny,  Natural  History  11,  69;  VI,  37;  Pomponius  Mela.  De  situ  orbis  III. 

•  Natural  History  VI,  20. 

•  [Strictly  speaking,  Gaius  was  the  grandson  of  .Vugustus,  but  was  adopted 
as  his  son.] 


if! 

!-g 


IK 


41 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Augnstum,  ad  Claudium  etiam  ex  Taprobane  insula,  deinde 
gesta  Traiani  et  tabulae  Ptolemaei  satis  ostendunt.  lam 
suo  tempore  Strabo '  Alexandrinorum  mercatorum  classem 
ex  Arabico  sinu,  ut  Aethiopiae  ultima,  ita  et  Indiae,  petiisse 
testatur,  cum  olim  paucis  navibus  id  auderetur.  Inde  magna 
populo  Romano  vectigalia;  addit  Plinius*  impositis  sagit- 
tariorum  cohortibus  piratarum  metu  navigatum;  solamque 
Indiam  quingenties  sestertium,  si  Arabiam  addas  et  Seres, 
millies  annis  omnibus  Romano  Imperio  ademisse;  et  merces 
centuplicato  venditas. 

Et  haec  quidem  Vetera  satis  argmmt  primos  non  fuisse 
Lusitanos.  In  singulis  autem  sui  partibus  Oceanus  ille  et 
tunc  cum  eum  Lusitani  ingressi  simt,  et  numaquam  non 
cognitus  fuit.  Mauri  enim,  Aethiopes,  Arabes,  Persae,  Indi, 
cam  maris  partem  cuius  ipsi  accolae  sunt,  nescire  neutiquam 
potuerunt. 

Mentiuntur  ergo  qui  se  mare  illud  invenisse  iactant. 

Quid  igitur,  dicet  aliquis,  parumne  videtur,  quod  Lusi- 
tani intermissam  multis  forte  saeculis  navigationem  primi 
repararunt,  et,  quod  negari  non  potest,  Europaeis  gentibus 
ignotam  ostenderunt,  magno  suo  labore,  sumptu,  periculo? 

'  Grographica  II  et  XVII. 

•  Pliny,  NaturaUs  hUtoria  XII,  19  [VI.  83]. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


41 


4 

■■--a 


bassies  from  the  Indies  to  Augustus,  and  those  from  Ceylon 
to  the  emperor  Claudius,  and  finally  the  accounts  of  the 
deeds  of  Trajan,  and  the  writings  of  Ptolemaeus,  all  make 
it  quite  clear  that  in  the  days  of  Rome's  greatest  splendor 
voyages  were  made  regularly  from  the  Arabian  gulf  to 
India,  to  the  islands  of  the  Indian  ocean,  and  even  so  far  as 
to  the  golden  Chersonesus,  which  many  people  think  was 
Japan.  Strabo  says '  that  in  his  own  time  a  fleet  of  Alex- 
andrian merchantmen  set  sail  from  the  Arabian  gulf  for 
the  distant  lands  of  Ethiopia  and  India,  although  few  ships 
had  ever  before  attempted  that  voyage.  The  Roman  people 
had  a  large  revenue  from  the  East.  Plinv  says  ^  that  cohorts 
of  archers  were  carried  on  the  boats  engaged  in  trade  as 
protection  against  pirates;  he  states  also  that  every  year 
500,000  sesterces  *  were  taken  out  of  the  Roman  empire  by 
India  alone,  or  1,000,000  sesterces  f  you  add  Arabia  and 
China;  further,  that  merchandise  brought  from  the  East 
sold  for  one  hundred  times  its  original  cost. 

These  examples  cited  from  ancient  times  are  sufficient 
proof  that  the  Portuguese  were  not  the  first  in  that  part 
of  the  world.  Long  before  they  ever  came,  every  single 
part  of  that  ocean  had  been  long  since  explored.  For  how 
possibly  could  the  Moors,  the  Ethiopians,  the  Arabiwis,  tl»«» 
Persians,  the  peoples  of  India,  have  remained  in  ignormf^'e 
of  that  part  of  the  sea  adjacent  to  their  coasts! 

Therefore  they  lie,  who  today  boast  that  they  discoverrd 
that  sea. 

Well  then,  some  one  will  say,  does  it  seem  to  be  a  nv 
of  little  moment  that  the  Portuguese  were  the  first  t< 
store  a  navigation  interrupted  perhaps  for  many  centui 
and  unknown — as  cannot  be  denied — at  least  to  the  nation; 
of  Europe,  at  great  labor  and  cost  and  danger  to  them- 

'  Geography  II  and  XVII. 

•  Natural  History  VI,  33. 

*  [A  Roman  sestertius  was  atraut  four  cents.] 


'{It 

■J 
ff 

N 


0 


42 


MARE  LIBERVM 


Imnio  vero  si  in  hoc  incubuerunt  ut  quod  soli  rcperissent 
id  omnibus  monstrarent,  quis  adeo  est  amens,  qui  non 
plurimum  se  illis  debere  profiteatur?  Eandem  enini  gra- 
tiam,  laudemque  et  gloriam  immortalem  illi  promeruerint, 
qua  omnes  contenti  fuerunt  rerum  magnarum  inventores, 
quotquot  scilicet  non  sibi,  sed  humano  generi  prodesse  stu- 
duerunt.  Sin  Lusitanis  suus  ante  oculos  quaestus  fuit, 
lucrum  quod  semper  maximum  est  in  praevertendis  nego- 
tiationibus,  illis  sufficere  debuit.  Et  scimus  itinera  prima 
proventus  interdum  quater  decuplos,  aut  etiam  uberiorcs 
dedisse,  quibus  factum  ut  inops  diu  populus  ad  repentinas 
divitias  subito  prorumperet,  tanto  luxus  apparatu,  quantus 
vix  beatissimis  gentib.js  in  supremo  progressae  diu  fortunae 
fastigio  fuit. 

Si  vero  eidem  in  hoc  praeiverunt,  ne  quisquam  sequere- 
tur,  gratiam  non  merentur,  cum  lucrum  suimi  respexerint: 
lucrum  autem  suum  dicere  non  possunt,  cum  eripiaiit 
alienum.  Neque  enim  illud  certum  est  nisi  ivissent  eo 
Lusitani,  iturimi  fuisse  neminem.  Adventabant  enim 
tempora,  quibus  ut  artes  paene  omnes,  ita  et  terrarum  ct 
marium  situs  clarius  in  dies  noscebantur.  Excitassent 
Vetera,  quae  modo  retulimus,  exempla,  et  si  non  uno  impetu 
omnia  patuissent,  at  paulatim  promota  velis  fuissent  litora 
alio  semper  aliud  monstrante.     Factum  denique   fuisset. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


42 


selves?  On  the  contrary,  if  they  had  laid  weight  upon  the 
fact  that  they  were  pointing  out  to  all  what  they  alone 
had  rediscovered,  there  is  no  one  so  lacking  in  sense  that  he 
would  not  acknowledge  the  greatest  obligation  to  them. 
For  the  Portuguese  will  have  earned  the  same  thanks, 
praise,  and  immortal  glory  with  which  all  discoverers  of 
great  things  have  been  content,  whenever  they  have  striven 
to  benefit  not  themselves  but  the  whole  human  race.  But 
if  the  Portuguese  had  before  their  eyes  only  their  own 
financial  gain,  surely  their  profit,  which  is  always  the  largest 
for  those  first  in  a  new  field  of  enterprise,  ought  to  have 
satisfied  them.  For  we  know  that  their  first  voyages  re- 
turned a  profit  sometimes  of  forty  times  the  original  in- 
vestment, and  sometimes  even  more.  And  by  this  overseas 
trade  it  has  come  about  that  a  people,  previously  for  a  long 
time  poor,  have  leaped  suddenly  into  the  possession  of  great 
riches,  and  have  surrounded  themselves  with  such  outward 
signs  of  luxurious  magnificence  as  scarcely  the  most  pros- 
perous nations  have  been  able  to  display  at  the  height  of 
their  fortunes. 

But  if  these  Portuguese  have  led  the  way  in  this  matter 
in  order  that  no  one  may  follow  them,  then  they  do  not  de- 
serve any  thanks,  inasmuch  as  they  have  considered  only 
their  own  profit.  Nor  can  they  call  it  their  profit,  because 
they  are  taking  the  profit  of  some  one  else.  For  it  is  not  at 
all  demonstrable  that,  if  the  Portuguese  had  not  gone  to 
the  East  Indies,  no  one  else  would  have  gone.  For  the 
times  were  coming  on  apace  in  which  along  with  other 
sciences  the  geographical  locations  of  seas  and  lands  were 
being  better  known  everj'  day.  The  reports  of  the  expedi- 
tions of  the  ancients  mentioned  above  had  aroused  people, 
and  even  if  all  foreign  shores  had  not  been  laid  open  at  a 
single  stroke  as  it  were,  yet  they  would  have  been  brought 
to  light  gradually  by  sailing  voyages,  each  new  discovery 
pointing  the  way  to  the  next.    And  so  there  would  fin.tlly 


.I 

J 

"ft 

f 


48 


MARE  LIBERVM 


quod  fieri  potuisse  Lusitani  docuerunt,  cum  multi  essent 
populi  non  minus  flagrantes  mercaturae  et  rerum  externa- 
rum  studio.  Venetis  qui  multa  iam  Indiae  didicerant,  cetera 
inquirere  promptum  fuit.  Gallorum  Brittonum  indefessa 
sedulitas,  Anglorum  audacia  coepto  non  defuisset.  Ipsi 
Batavi  multo  magis  desperata  aggressi  sunt. 

Nulla  igitur  aequitatis  ratio,  ne  probabilis  quidem  ulla 
sententia  a  Lusitanis  stat.  Omnes  enim  qui  mare  volunt 
imperio  alicuius  subici  posse,  id  ei  attribumit  qui  proximos 
portus  et  circumiacentia  litora  in  dicione  habet.'  At  Lusitani 
in  illo  inunenso  litorum  tractu  paucis  exceptis  praesidiis  nihil 
habent  quod  suum  possint  dicere. 

Deinde  vero  etiam  qui  Mari  imperaret,  nihil  tamen  posset 
ex  usu  '  ommuni  deminuere,  sicut  Populus  Romanus  arcere 
neminem  potuit,  quo  minus  in  litore  imperi  Romani  cuncta 
faceret,  quae  iure  gentium  permittebantur."  Et  si  quicquani 
eorum  prohibere  posset,  puta  piscaturam  qua  dici  quodam- 
modo  potest  pisces  exhauriri,  at  navigationem  non  posset, 
per  quam  mari  nihil  perit. 

Cui  rei  argumentum  est  longe  certissimum,  quod  ex 
Doctorum  sententia  ante  retulimus,  etiam  in  terra,  quae  cum 
populis,  turn  hominibus  singulis  in  proprietatem  attributa 
est,  iter  tamen,  certe  inerme  et  innoxium,  nuUius  gentis 

•Gloss,  on  I.lb.  VI,  I,  6.  3  (De  elecfione,  c.  Lbl  jKrlculum.  (  Porro)i  on 
DigfM  If,  W,  a  (De  ferlls,  L.  Solet  (Grotlus  hug  Licet)). 

•  UlKtst   I,  8,  4   (De  divisione  rerum,  L.  Nemo  Igitur);  Oenlllls,  De  jiin- 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


48 


have  been  accomplished  what  the  Portuguese  showed  could 
be  done,  because  there  were  many  nations  with  no  less  ardor 
than  theirs  to  engage  in  commerce  and  to  learn  of  foreign 
things.  The  Venetians,  who  already  knew  much  about 
India,  were  ready  to  push  their  knowledge  farther;  the  in- 
defatigable zeal  of  the  French  of  Brittany,  and  the  boldness 
of  the  English  would  not  have  failed  to  make  such  an  at- 
tempt; indeed  the  Dutch  themselves  have  embarked  upon 
much  more  desperate  enterprises. 

Therefore  the  Portuguese  have  neither  just  reason  nor 
respectable  authority  to  support  their  position,  for  all  those 
persons  who  assume  that  the  sea  can  be  subjected  to  the 
sovereignty  of  any  one  assign  it  to  him  who  holds  in  his 
power  the  nearest  ports  and  the  circumjacent  shores.'  But 
in  all  that  great  extent  of  coast  line  reaching  to  the  East 
Indies  the  Portuguese  have  nothing  which  they  can  call 
their  own  except  a  few  fortified  posts. 

And  then  even  if  a  man  were  to  have  dominion  over  the 
sea,  still  he  could  not  take  away  anything  from  its  common 
use,  just  as  the  Roman  people  could  not  prevent  any  one 
from  doing  on  the  shores  of  their  dominions  all  those  things 
which  were  permitted  by  the  law  of  nations.'  And  if  it  were 
possible  to  prohibit  any  of  those  things,  say  for  example, 
fishing,  for  in  a  way  it  can  be  maintained  that  fish  are  ex- 
haustible, still  it  would  not  be  possible  to  prohibit  naviga- 
tion, for  the  sea  is  not  exhausted  by  that  use. 

The  most  conclusive  argument  on  this  question  by  far 
however  is  the  one  that  we  have  already  brought  forward 
based  on  the  opinions  of  eminent  jurists,  namely,  that  even 
over  land  which  had  been  converted  into  private  property 
either  by  states  or  individuals,  unarmed  and  innocent  pas- 
sage is  not  justly  to  he  denied  to  persons  of  any  countr>', 
exactly  as  the  right  to  drink  from  a  river  is  not  to  be 

'Glogsaton  on  Lib.  VI,  I,  8,  3;  on  Digest  II,  U,  3. 
•  Dfywt  I.  «,  4;  GentlUi,  Dr  jure  heiil  I.  !3. 


L  t 


44 


MARE  LIBERVM 


hominibus  iuste  negari;  sicut  et  potum  ex  flumine.  Ratio 
apparet,  quia  cum  unius  rei  naturaliter  usus  essent  diversi, 
eum  dumtaxat  gentes  divisisse  inter  se  videntur,  qui  sine 
proprietate  commode  haberi  non  potest,  contra  autem  eum 
recepisse,  per  quem  domini  condicio  deterior  non  esset  futura. 

Omnes  igitur  vident  eum  qui  alterum  navigare  prohibeat 
nuUo  iure  defendi,  cum  eundem  etiam  iniuriarum  teneri 
Vlpianus  dixerit; '  alii  autem  etiam  interdictum  utile  pro- 
hibito  competere  existimaverint.' 

Et  sic  Batavorum  intentio  communi  iure  nititur,  cum 
fateantur  omnes,  permissum  cuilibet  in  mari  navigare  etiam 
a  nullo  Principe  impetrata  licentia;  quod  Legibus  Hispanicis 
diserte  expressum  est.' 

'  Digest  XLin,  8,  9  (Ne  quid  in  loco  publico,  L.  Praetor  ait,  §  Si  quis  in 
mari). 

•Gloss,  on  Digest  XLIII,  U  (Ut  in  flumine  publico). 

'Baldus  on  Digest  I,  8,  3  (De  divislone  rerum,  L.  Item  lapiUI),  Zuerius, 
Consilia  duo  de  usu  maris  I,  3,  part.  tit.  28,  L.  10  et  12. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


44 


denied.  The  reason  is  clear,  because,  inasmuch  as  one  and 
the  same  thing  is  susceptible  by  nature  to  different  uses,  the 
nations  seem  on  the  one  hand  to  have  apportioned  among 
themselves  that  use  which  cannot  be  maintained  con- 
veniently apart  from  private  ownership;  but  on  the  other 
hand  to  have  reserved  that  use  through  the  exercise  of  which 
the  condition  of  the  owner  would  not  be  impaired. 

It  is  clear  therefore  to  every  one  that  he  who  prevents 
another  from  navigating  the  sea  has  no  support  in  law. 
Ulpian  has  said '  that  he  was  even  bound  to  pay  damages, 
and  other  jurists  have  thought  that  the  injunction  utile 
prohibtto  could  also  be  brought  against  him.' 

Finally,  the  relief  prayed  for  by  the  Dutch  rests  upon  a 
common  right,  since  it  is  universally  admitted  that  naviga- 
tion on  the  sea  is  open  to  any  one,  even  if  permission  is  not 
obtamed  from  any  ruler.  And  this  is  specificially  expressed 
in  the  Spanish  laws.' 

'  Digest  XLIII,  8,  9. 
'Glossators  on  Diftcst  XFJII,  U. 

•Baldus  on  Digest  I.  8,  3;  Zuarius,  ConsUia  duo  de  usu  maris  I,  3,  28  L.  10 
snd  I.\     [Ro<Icricus  Zuarius,  Consilla  published  in  I6il]. 


l! 


CAPVT  VI 

Mare  aut  ius  ruwigandi  proprium  non  este 

Lusitanorum  titulo  dotuitionis 

Pontificiae 

Donatio  Pontificis  Alexandri,  quae  a  Lusitanis  mare  aut 
ius  navigandi  solis  sibi  vindicantibus,  cum  invention:  3 
deficiat  titulus,  secundo  loco  adduci  potest,  satis  ex  iis  quae 
ante  dicta  sunt  vanitatis  convincitur.  Donatio  enim  nullum 
habet  momentum  in  rebus  extra  commercium  positis.  Quare 
cum  mare  aut  ius  in  eo  navigandi  proprium  nulli  hominum 
esse  possit,  sequitur  neque  dari  a  Pontifice  neque  a  Lusitanis 
accipi  potuisse.  Praeterea  cum  supra  relatimi  sit  ex  onmium 
sani  iudicii  hominum  sententia  Papam  non  esse  dominum 
temporalem  totius  orbis,  ne  Maris  quidem  esse  satis  intelli- 
gitur;  quamquam  etsi  id  concederetur,  tamen  ius  annexum 
Pontificatui  in  Regem  aliquem  aut  populum  pro  parte  nulla 
transferri  debuisset.  Sicut  nee  Imperator  posset  Imperi 
provincias  in  suos  usus  convertere,  aut  pro  suo  arbitrio 
alienare.' 

Illud  saltem  nemo  negaturus  est,  cui  aliquid  sit  front  is. 
cum  ius  disponendi  in  temporalibus  Pontifici  nemo  concedat. 
nisi  forte  quantum  eius  rerum  spiritualium  necessitas  requi- 
rit,  ista  autem  de  quibus  nunc  aginms,  mare  scilicet  et  ius 
navigandi,  lucrum  et  quaestum  merum,  non  pietatis  negotium 

"Victoria,  De  Indis  I  (II?),  n.  M. 


4S 


CHAPTER  VI 

Neither  the  Sea  nor  the  right  of  navigation  thereon  belongs 

to  the  Portuguese  by  virtue  of  title  baaed  on  the 

Papal  Donation 

The  Donation  of  Pope  Alexander,  inasmuch  as  the  title 
based  on  discovery  is  seen  to  be  deficient,  may  next  be  in- 
voked by  the  Portuguese  to  justify  their  exclusive  appro- 
priation of  the  sea  and  the  right  of  navigation  thereon.  But 
from  what  has  been  said  above,  that  Donation  is  clearly 
convicted  of  being  an  act  of  empty  ostentation.  For  a 
Donation  has  no  effect  on  things  outside  the  realm  of  trade. 
Wherefore  since  neither  the  sea  nor  the  right  of  navigating 
it  can  become  the  private  property  of  any  man,  it  follows 
that  it  could  not  have  been  given  by  the  Pope,  nor  accepted 
by  the  Portuguese.  Besides,  as  has  been  mentioned  above, 
following  the  opinion  of  all  men  of  sound  judgment,  it  is 
sufficiently  well  recognized  that  the  Pope  is  not  the  tem- 
poral lord  of  the  earth,  and  certainly  not  of  the  sea.  Even 
if  it  be  granted  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  such  were 
the  cace,  still  a  right  attaching  to  the  Pontificate  ought  not 
to  be  transferred  wholly  or  in  part  to  any  king  or  nation. 
Similarly  no  emperor  could  convert  to  his  own  uses  or 
alienate  at  his  own  pleasure  the  provinces  of  his  empire.' 

Xow,  inasmuch  as  no  one  concedes  to  the  Pope  in  tem- 
poral matters  a  jus  disponendi,  except  perhaps  in  so  far  as 
It  IS  demanded  by  the  necessity  of  spiritual  matters,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  things  now  under  discussion,  namely,  tlie 
sea  and  the  right  of  navigating  it,  are  concerned  onlv  with 
money  and  profits,  not  with  piety,  surely  no  one  can  have 

'  Victoria,  D«  IntiU  I,  n.  S6. 

45 


r 


=fet. 


46 


MARE  LIBERVM 


respiciant,  sequi  nullaiu  hac  in  re  fuisse  illius  potestatem. 
Quid,  quod  ne  Principes  quidem,  hoc  est,  domini  temporales 
possunt  ullo  modo  a  navigatione  aliquem  pronibere,  cum  si 
quod  habent  ius  in  mari  id  sit  tantum  iurisdictionis  ac  pro- 
tectionis?  Etiam  illud  notissinium  est  apud  omnes,  ad  ea 
f  acienda  quae  cum  lege  Naturae  pugnant,  nuUam  esse  Papae 
auctoritatem.'  Pugnat  aatem  cum  lege  Naturae,  ut  mare 
aut  eius  usum  quisquam  habeat  sibi  proprium,  ut  iam  satis 
demonstravimus.  Cum  denique  ius  suum  auferre  alicui  Papa 
minime  possit,  quae  erit  facti  istius  defensio,  si  tot  populos 
immerentes,  indemnatos,  innoxios  ab  eo  iure  quod  ad  ipsos 
non  minus  quam  ad  Hispanos  pertinebat  uno  verbo  voluit  ex- 
cludere? 

Aut  igitur  dicendum  est  nuUam  esse  vim  eiusmodi  pro- 
nuntiationis,  aut  quod  non  minus  credibile  est,  eum  Ponti- 
ficis  animum  fuisse,  ut  Castellanorum  et  Lusitanorum  inter 
se  certamini  intercessum  voluerit,  aliorum  autem  iuri  nihil 
diminutum. 

'SUvestris,  In  verbo  Papa.  n.  16. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  46 

the  face  to  insist  that  the  Pope  had  any  jurisdiction  here. 
What  of  the  fact  that  not  even  rulers,  that  is  to  say, 
temporal  lords,  can  prohibit  any  one  from  navigation,  since 
if  they  have  any  right  at  all  upon  the  sea  it  is  merely  one  of 
jurisdiction  and  protection!  It  is  also  a  fact  universally 
recognized  that  the  Pope  has  no  authority  to  commit  acts 
repugnant  to  the  law  of  nature.'  But  it  is  repugnant  to 
the  law  of  nature,  as  we  have  already  proved  beyond  a 
doubt,  for  any  one  to  have  as  his  own  private  property 
either  the  sea  or  its  use.  Finally,  since  the  Pope  is  whoUy 
unable  to  deprive  any  one  of  his  own  rights,  what  defense 
will  there  be  for  that  Donation  of  his,  if  by  a  word  he  in- 
tended to  exclude  so  many  innocent,  uncondemned,  and 
guiltless  nations  from  a  right  which  belongs  no  less  to  them 
than  to  the  Spaniards? 

Therefore,  either  it  must  be  affirmed  that  a  pronuncia- 
mento  of  this  sort  has  no  force,  or,  as  is  no  less  credible,  that 
it  was  the  desire  of  the  Pope  to  intercede  in  the  quarrel 
between  the  Spaniards  and  the  Portuguese,  and  that  he  had 
no  concomitant  intention  of  violating  the  rights  of  others. 

•Silvestrls,  In  verbo  Papa.  n.  16. 


ij  Sf|        1 

'A 


CAPVT  VII 

Mare  aut  ius  navigandi  proprium  non  esse 

Lusitanorum  titulo  praescriptionis 

aut  consuetudinis 

Vltimum  iniquitatis  patrocinium  in  praescriptione  solet 
esse  aut  consuetudine.  Et  hue  igitur  Lusitani  se  conferunt; 
sed  utrumque  illis  praesidium  certissima  iuris  ratio  prae- 
cludit.  Nam  praescriptio  a  iure  est  civili,  unde  lociun  habere 
non  potest  inter  reges,  aut  inter  populos  liberos;'  multo 
autem  minus  ubi  ius  naturae  aut  gentium  resistit,  quod  iure 
civili  semper  validius  est.  Quin  et  ipsa  lex  civilis  praescrip- 
tionem  hie  impedit.'  Vsucapi  enim,  aut  praescriptione 
acquiri  prohibentur,  quae  in  bonis  esse  non  possunt,  deinde 
quae  possideri  vel  quasi  possideri  nequeunt,  et  quorum 
alienatio  prohibita  est.  Haec  autem  omnia  de  mari  et  usu 
maris  vere  dicuntur. 

Et  cum  publicae  res,  hoc  est  populi  alicuius  nulla  tem- 
poris  possessione  quaeri  posse  dicantur,  sive  ob  rei  naturam, 
sive  ob  eorum  privilegium  adversus  quos  praescriptio  ista 
procederet,  quanto  iustius  humano  generi,  quam  uni  populo 
id  beneficium  dandum  fuit  in  rebus  communibus?   Et  hoc  est 

'  VBsquius,  Controveniae  illustres,  c.  51. 

•Donrllus,  V,  22  et  wq.;  Digest  XVIII,  1,  6  (De  contrahenda  emptlone.  L. 
Sed  Celsus);  XLI,  3,  9  (De  usucaplonibus,  L.  Usucaplonrm),  85  (L.  Sine); 
Lib.  VI,  V,  12  (De  regulis  iuris,  Reg.  Sine  possessione);  Digest  L,  16,  2S  (De 
verbonim  signiflcatione,  L.  '  Alienationis');  XXIII,  5,  16  (De  fundo  dotali,  L. 
Si  fundum). 


47 


CHAPTER  VII 

Neither  the  Sea  nor  the  right  of  navigation  thereon  belongs 

to  the  Portuguese  by  title  of  prescription  or 

custom 

The  last  defense  of  injustice  is  usually  a  claim  or  plea 
based  on  prescription  or  on  custom.  To  this  defense  there- 
fore the  Portuguese  have  resorted.  But  the  best  established 
reasoning  of  the  law  precludes  them  from  enjoying  the 
protection  of  either  plea. 

Prescription  is  a  matter  of  municipal  law;  hence  it  can- 
not be  applied  as  between  kings,  or  as  between  free  and 
independent  nations.*  It  has  even  less  standing  when  it  is 
in  conflict  with  that  which  is  always  stronger  than  the 
municipal  law,  namely,  the  law  of  nature  or  nations.  Nay, 
even  municipal  law  itself  prevents  prescription  in  this  case.* 
For  it  is  impossible  to  acquire  by  usucaption  or  prescription 
things  which  cannot  become  property,  that  is,  which  are  not 
susceptible  of  possession  or  of  quasi-possession,  and  which 
cannot  be  alienated.  All  of  which  is  true  with  respect  to  the 
sea  and  its  use. 

And  since  public  things,  that  is,  things  which  are  the 
property  of  a  nation,  cannot  be  acquired  by  mero  efflux 
of  time,  either  because  of  their  nature,  or  because  of  the 
prerogatives  of  those  against  whom  such  prescription  would 
act,  is  it  not  vastly  more  just  that  the  benefits  accruing  from 
the  enjoyment  of  common  things  should  be  given  to  the 
entire  human  race  than  to  one  nation  alone?    On  this  point 

'Vuqulus,  Controversiae  illustres,  c.  SI. 

•Donellus,  V.  Mff.j  Digest  XVIII,  I,  6;  XLI.  3,  9,  25;  Lib.  VI,  V,  U 
(Reg.  Sine  possessione) ;  Digest  L,  16,  28;  XXIU.  4,  16. 

47 


'3  *. 


48 


MARE  LIBERVM 


quod  Fapinianus  scriptum  reliquit,* '  praescriptionem  longae 
possessionis  ad  obtinenda  loca  iurisgentium  publica  concedi 
non  solere ';  eiusque  rei  exemplum  dat  in  litore,  cuius  pars 
imposito  aedificio  occupata  fuerat.  Nam  eo  diruto,  et 
alterius  aedificio  in  eodem  loco  postea  exstructo,  exceptionem 
opponi  non  posse;  quod  deinde  similitudine  rei  publicae  illus- 
trat,  nam  et  si  quis  in  fluminis  diverticulo  pluribus  annis 
piscatus  sit,  postea,  interrupta  scilicet  piscatione,  alteram 
eodem  iure  prohibere  non  posse. 

Apparet  igitur  Angelum  et  qui  cum  Angelo  dixerunt ' 
Venetis  et  Genuensibus  per  praescriptionem  ius  aliquod  in 
sinum  maris  suo  litori  praeiacentem  acquiri  potuisse,  aut 
falli,  aut  fallere,  quod  sane  lurisconsultis  nimium  est  fre- 
quens,  cum  sanctae  professionis  auctoritatem,  non  ad 
rationes  et  leges,  sed  ad  gratiam  conferimt  potentioruni. 
Nam  Martiani  quidem  responsum,  de  quo  et  ante  egiinus. 
si  recce  cum  Papiniani  verbis  comparetur,'  non  aliam  accipere 
potest  interpretationem,  quam  eam  quae  et  lohanni  olim  et 
Bartolo  probata  est,  et  nunc  a  doctis  omnibus  recipitur:  *  ut 
scilicet  ius  prohibendi  procedat  quamdiu  durat  occupatio, 

'  Digest  XLI,  3,  45  (De  usucapionibus) ;  Code  VIII,  11,  6  (De  operis  publids, 
L.  Praescriplio);  XI,  43,  9  (De  aquaeductu,  L.  Diligenter)  j  Digest  XLIII,  11,  i 
(De  via  publica,  L.  Viani) ;  XLI,  3,  49  (De  usucapionibus,  L.  ult.). 

"Consilia  286;  Thema  tale  est:  inter  caetera  capitula  pacis. 

•Digest  XLIV,  3,  7  (De  diversis  temporalibus  praescriptionibus,  I..  Si 
quisquam). 

•Duarenus,  De  usucapionibus,  c.  3;  Cuiacius  on  Digest  XLI,  3,  49  (Dr 
usucapionibus,  L.  ult.);  Donellus  V,  22  on  Digest  XLI,  1,  14  (De  a'dquireniio 
reruiu  dominio,  L.  (juod  in  litore). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


48 


Papinian  has  said : ' '  Prescription  raised  by  long  possession 
is  not  customarily  recognized  as  valid  in  the  acquisition  of 
places  known  to  international  law  as  "  public  "  '.  As  an  ex- 
ample, to  illustrate  this  point,  he  cites  a  shore  some  part  of 
which  had  been  occupied  by  means  of  a  building  constructed 
on  it.  But  if  this  building  should  be  destroyed,  and  some 
one  else  later  should  construct  a  building  on  the  same  spot, 
no  exception  could  be  taken  to  it.  Then  he  illustrates  the 
same  point  by  the  analogous  case  of  a  res  publica.  If,  for 
example,  any  one  has  fished  for  many  years  in  a  branch  of 
a  river,  and  has  then  stopped  fishing  there,  after  that  he 
cannot  prevent  any  one  else  from  enjoying  the  same  right 
that  he  had. 

Wherefore  it  appears  that  Angeli '  and  his  followers  who 
have  said  that  Ihe  Venetians  and  Genoese  were  able  to  ac- 
quire by  prescription  certain  specific  rights  in  the  gulfs  of 
the  sea  ad  .t  to  their  shores,  either  are  mistaken,  or  are 
deceiving  c  rs;  a  thing  which  happens  all  too  frequently 
with  jurists  when  they  exercise  the  autho  r  tlieir  sacred 

profession  not  for  justice  and  law,  but  in  to  gain 

the  gratitude  of  the  powerful.  There  is  also  an  opinion 
of  Marcianus,  already  cited  above  in  another  connection, 
which,  when  carefully  compared  with  the  words  of  Papinian,* 
can  have  no  other  interpretation  than  the  one  formerly 
adopted  by  Johannes  and  Bartolus,*  and  now  accepted  by 
all  learned  men,*  namely,  that  the  jus  prohibendi  is  in  effect 
only  while  occupation  lasts;  it  loses  its  force  •"  occupation 

•Digest  XLI,  S,  «j  Code  VIII,  11,  6;  XI,  43,  9j  Di-  t  XLIII,  11,  2: 
XLI,  3,  49. 

'Consilia  286  [Angelus  Arctinus  a  Gambellionibus  (P-H45),  a  voluminou* 
commentator  on  the  Digest  and  the  Institutes]. 

•  Digest  XLIV,  3,  7. 

'Duren,  De  usucapionibus,  c.  3;  Cujas  on  Digest  XLI.  3,  49;  Donellus 
V,  2-2  on  Digest  XLI,  1,  14. 

*  [Bartolus  de  Saxoferrato  (1314-1357)  the  most  famous  of  the  Post-glos- 
sators, was  called  by  many  of  his  biographers  'Optimus  auriga  in  liac  civlli 
sapientia '.] 


I 


49 


MARE  LIBERVM 


non  autem  si  ea  omissa  sit ;  omissa  enim  non  prodest,  nee  si 
per  mille  annos  fuisset  continuata,  ut  recte  animadvertit 
Castrensis.  Et  quamvis  hoc  vcluisset  Martianus,  quod 
minime  credendus  est  cogitasse,  in  quo  loco  occupatio  con- 
ceditur,  in  eodem  praescriptionem  concedi,  tamen  absurdum 
erat  quod  de  fiumine  publico  dictum  erat  ad  Mare  commune, 
et  quod  de  diverticulo  ad  sinum  proferre,  cimi  haec  prae- 
scriptio  usum  qui  est  luregentium  communis,  impeditura 
sit,  ilia  autem  publico  usui  non  admodum  noceat.  Alteruin 
autem  Angeli  argumentum  quod  ex  aquaeductu  sumitur,' 
eodem  Castrensi  monstrante,  ut  a  quaestione  alienissimum, 
ab  omnibus  merito  exploditur. 

Falsum  igitur  est  talem  praescriptionem  e*''  '  »:o  tem- 
pore gigni,  cuius  initium  omnem  memoriam  exc  .at.  Vbi 
enim  lex  omnem  omnino  tollit  praescriptionem,  ne  istuil 
quidem  tempus  admittitur,  hoc  est,  ut  Felinus  loquitur,"  ma- 
teria impraescriptibilis  tempore  immemoriali  non  fit  prae- 
scriptibilis.  Fatetur  ha.c  vera  esse  Balbus;'  sed  Angeli 
sententiam  receptam  dicit  hac  ratione,  quia  tempus  extra 
memoriam  positum  idem  valere  creditur  privilegio,  cum 
titulus  amplissimus  ex  tali  tempore  praesumatur.  Apparet 
hinc  non  aliud  illos  sensisse,  quam  si  pars  aliqua  reipublicae, 
puta  Imperi  Romani,  supra  omnem  memoriam  usa  esset  tali 
iure,  ei  dandam  praescriptionem  hoc  colore,  quasi  Principis 

'  Code  XI,  43,  4  (De  aquarductu,  L.  Usum  aquae) ;  cf.  eod.  tit.,  L.  Diligcntcr; 
cf.  Digest  XI, III,  50,  3  (De  aqua  cottidiana  et  aestiva,  L.  Hoc  iure,  §  Ductus 
aquae). 

'On  Decrctules  Grtgorii  Papae  IX,  II,  26,  11  (De  praescriptionibus,  c. 
Accedfntes). 

'  De  praescriptionibus  IV,  5,  q.  6,  n.  8. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  49 

cease;  and  occupation  once  interrupted,  even  if  it  had  been 
continuous  for  a  thousand  years,  loses  its  rights,  as  Paul  de 
Castro  *  justly  observes.  And  even  if  Marcianus  had  meant 
—which  certainly  was  not  in  his  mind  at  all— that  acquisition 
by  prescription  is  to  be  recognized  wherever  occupation  is 
recognized,  still  it  would  have  been  absurd  to  apply  what 
had  been  said  about  a  public  river  to  the  common  sea,  or 
what  had  been  said  about  an  inlet  or  a  river  branch  to  a 
bay,  since  in  the  latter  case  prescription  would  hinder  the 
use  of  something  common  to  all  by  f  *ie  law  of  rations,  and 
in  the  former  case  would  work  no  gr»iat  injury  to  public  use. 
Moreover,  another  argument  brought  forward  by  Angeli 
based  on  the  use  of  aqueducts,'  has  quite  properly  been  re- 
jected by  every  one,  being,  as  de  Castro  pointed  out,  entirely 
aside  from  the  point. 

It  is  not  true  then  that  such  prescription  rises  even  at  a 
time  beyond  the  period  of  the  memory  of  man.  For  since 
the  law  absolutely  denies  all  prescription,  not  even  im- 
memorial time  has  any  effect  on  the  question;  that  is,  as 
Felinus '  says,  things  imprescriptible  by  nature  do  not  be- 
come prescriptible  by  the  mere  efflux  of  immemorial  time. 
Balbus  admits  the  truth  of  these  arguments,'  but  says  that 
the  opinion  of  Angeli  is  to  be  accepted  on  the  ground  that 
time  immemorial  is  believed  to  hiue  the  same  validity  as 
prerogative  for  setting  up  a  title,  since  a  perfect  title  is 
presumed  from  such  efflux  of  time.  Hence  it  appears  that 
the  jurists  thought  if  some  part  of  a  state,  say  of  the  Roman 
empire  for  example,  at  a  period  before  the  memory  of  man 
had  exercised  such  a  right,  that  a  title  by  prescription  would 

■  Code  XI,  43,  4;  cf.  XI,  43,  9;  cf.  Digest  XLIII,  20,  3. 

•On  the  Decretals  of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  II,  26,  11  [Felinus  Maria  Sandeus 
(c.   1127-1503),  Bishop  of  Lucca]. 

■  Ue  praescriptionil)us  IV,  5,  q.  6,  n.  8  [  hannes  Franciscus  Balbus,  a  priest 
and  jurisconsult  at  Muentz-hof]. 

'  IThe  celebrated  Italian  jurist  (P-1420  or  1437)  of  whom  Cujas  said:  "Si 
voiis  n'avez  pas  Paul  de  Castro,  vender  votre  chemise  pour  I'aeheter."  (Note  from 
page  55  of  the  French  translation  of  Gtotius  by  de  Grandpont.l] 


50 


MARE  LIBERVM 


concessio  praeiisset.  Quare  cum  nemo  sit  dominus  totius 
generis  humani,  qui  ius  illud  adversus  homines  omnes  homini, 
aut  populo  alicui  potuisset  concedere,  sublato  illo  colore, 
necesse  est  etiam  praescriptionem  interimi.  Et  sic  ex  illorum 
etiam  sententia  inter  reges  aut  populos  liberos  prodesse 
nihil  potest  lapsus  infiniti  temporis. 

Vanissimimi  autem  et  illud  est  quod  Angelus  docuit, 
etiamsi  ad  dominium  praescriptio  proficere  non  potest,  tamen 
dandam  esse  possidenti  exceptionem.  Nam  Papinianus 
disertis  verbis  exceptionem  negat:  *  et  aliter  non  potuit  sen- 
tire,  cum  ipsius  saeculo  praescriptio  nihil  esset  aliud  quam 
exceptio.  Verum  igitur  est  quod  et  leges  Hispanicae  ex- 
primunt'  in  his  rebus  quae  communi  hominum  usui  sunt 
attributae,  nullius  omnino  temporis  praescriptionem  proce- 
dcre,  cuius  definitionis  ilia  praeter  ceteras  ratio  reddi  potest, 
quod  qui  re  communi  utitur,  ut  communi  uti  videtur,  non 
autem  iure  proprio,  et  ita  praescribere  non  magis  quam  f ruc- 
tuarius  potest  vitio  possessionis.' 

Altera  haec  etiam  non  contemnenda  e»t,  quod  in  prae- 
scriptione  temporis  cuius  memoria  non  exstat,  quamvis  titulus 
et  bona  fides  praesumantur,  tamen  si  re  ipsa  appareat  titulum 
omnino  nullum  dari  posse,  et  sic  manifesta  sit  fides  mala, 
quae  in  populo  maxime  quasi  \mo  corpore  perpetua  esse 

'On  Dlp-st  XM.  3.  49  (De  iiMirnpinnihiis,  I.,  u  t.). 
*  Par.  3,  fit.  39.  1.  7  in  c  I'larn.;  Zuuriiis,  Consilin,  num.  4. 
'  Fndilnimm  VIII,  c.  26  ct  c.  33;  Uuarcnus,  Dc  i)raescri|itiuiiibus,  parte  i,  §  ?, 
n.  8j  §  8,  n.  S  ft  fl. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


50 


have  to  be  admitted  on  that  ground,  exactly  as  if  there  had 
been  a  previous  grant  from  a  Prince.  But  inasmuch  as 
there  is  no  one  who  is  sovereign  of  the  whole  human  race 
with  competence  to  grant  to  any  man  or  to  any  nation  such 
a  right  against  all  other  men,  with  the  annihilation  of  that 
pretext,  title  by  prescription  is  also  necessarily  destroyed. 
Therefore  the  opinion  of  the  jurists  is  that  not  even  an  in- 
finite lapse  of  time  is  able  to  set  up  a  right  as  between  kings 
or  independent  nations. 

Moreover  Angeli  brought  forward  a  most  foolish  argu- 
ment, affirming  that  even  if  prescription  could  not  create 
ownership,  still  an  exception  ought  to  be  made  in  favor  of 
a  possessor.  Papinian  however  in  unmistakable  words  says 
there  is  no  exception,'  nor  could  he  think  otherwise,  because 
in  his  day  prescription  was  itself  an  exception.  It  is  there- 
fore true,  as  expressed  also  in  the  laws  of  Spain,"  that  pre- 
scription based  on  no  matter  how  immemorial  a  time,  sets 
up  no  title  to  those  things  which  are  recognized  as  conmion 
to  the  use  of  mankind.  One  reason  among  others  which 
can  be  given  for  this  definition  is  that  any  one  who  uses  a 
res  communis  <loes  so  evidently  by  virtue  of  common  and 
not  private  right,  and  because  of  the  imperfect  character  of 
possession  he  can  therefore  no  more  set  up  a  legal  title  by 
prescription  than  can  a  usufructuarj'.' 

A  second  reason  not  to  be  overlooked  is  that  although  a 
title  and  good  faith  are  presumed  in  a  prescriptive  right 
created  by  the  efflux  of  immemorial  time,  nevertheless  if 
it  appears  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself  that  no  title 
at  all  can  be  established,  and  if  thus  there  becomes  evident 
bad  faith— a  thing  held  to  be  permanent  in  a  nation  as  well 
as  in  an  individual— then  prescription  fails  because  of  a 

•  On  Digest  XI.I.  S,  49. 

■  Far.  3,  tit.  29,  I.  7  In  c.  Plarn.;  Zuariiis,  Omsilin,  num.  4. 

'  rachlnham  VIII,  c.  3«  and  c.  3:»i  Dunren.  IV  firii(>srri|>tii>nll)us.  pnrtp  3,  §  J, 
n  ^i  §  8,  n.  5  and  6.  [Nicholw  Fatliinliuiu  (?-U07),  a  Fmuisian,  who  tauirht 
Theology  ot  Oxfotd.] 


I 


n 


51 


MARE  LIBERVM 


i  ! 


censetur,  et  ex  duplici  defectu  praescriptio  corruit.'  Tertia 
vero,  quia  res  haec  est  merae  fucultatis,  quae  non  praescri- 
bitur,  ut  infra  demonstrabimus. 

Sed  nuUus  est  finis  argutiarum.  Inventi  sunt  qui  in  hoc 
argumento  a  praescriptione  consuetudinem  distinguerent,  ut 
ilia  scilicet  exclusi,  ad  banc  confugerent.  Discrimen  autem 
quod  hie  statuunt  sane  ridiculum  est:  ex  praescriptione  aiunt 
ius  unius  quod  ab  eo  aufertur  alteri  applicari ; '  sed  cum  ali- 
quod  ius  ita  alicui  applicatu'-  ut  alteri  non  auferatur,  turn 
dici  consuetudinem;  quasi  ^  o  cum  ius  navigandi  quod  com- 
muniter  ad  omnes  pertinet,  exclusis  aliis  ab  uno  usurpatur, 
non  necesse  sit  omnibus  perire  quantum  uni  accedit.  Errori 
huic  ansam  dederunt  Pauli  verba  non  recte  accepta,  qui  rum 
de  iure  proprio  maris  ad  aliquem  pertinente  loqueretur,' 
fieri  hoc  posse  dixit  Accursius  per  privilegium  aut  consuetu- 
dinem: quod  additamentum  ad  lurisconsulti  textum  nullo 
modo  accedens  mali  potius  coniectoris  esse  videtur  quam  boiii 
interpretis.  Mens  Pauli  supra  explicata  est,  Cetcrum  illi 
si  vel  sola  Vlpiani  verba,*  quae  paulo  ante  praecedunt,  satis 
considerassent,  longe  aliud  dicturi  erant.  Fatetur  enim  ut 
quis  ante  aedes  meas  piscari  prohibeatur,  esse  quidem  usiir- 

■  Fachlnham  VHI,  c.  28. 

■  Anffflus  Aretinus  in  rubr.  Diftcst  I.  8  (Dc  divisiorK    rerum);  Balhus,  I.  c 
n.  2;  vf.  Viisquium,  rnntnufrsiiic  Illiistri'S  r.  .'!»,  n.  'M. 

'  On  Di^rest  Xr.VH,  10.  U  (I>  iiiiiirils,  I,.  Sunr). 

'  Dipst  XI.VII,  10,  13  (Uf  iniuriis,  L.  liiiuiiuruin,  §  ult.) 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


51 


double  defect.'  Also  a  third  reason  is  that  we  have  under 
consideration  a  merely  facultative  right  which  is  not  pre- 
scriptible,  as  we  shall  show  below.* 

But  there  is  no  end  to  their  subtilties.  There  are  jurists 
who  in  this  case  would  distinguish  custom  from  prescription, 
so  that  if  they  are  debarred  from  the  one,  they  may  fall 
back  upon  the  other.  But  the  distinction  which  they  set  up 
is  most  absurd.  They  say  that  the  right  of  one  person 
which  is  taken  away  from  him  is  given  to  another  by  pre- 
scription; '  but  that  when  any  right  is  given  to  any  one  in 
such  a  way  that  it  is  not  taken  away  from  any  one  else, 
then  it  is  called  custom.  As  if  indeed  the  right  of 
navigation,  which  is  common  to  all,  upon  being  usurped 
by  some  one  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  would  not 
necessarily  when  it  became  the  property  of  one  be  lost 
to  all  t 

This  t  or  receives  support  from  misinterpretation  of 
what  Paulus  has  t')  say  about  a  private  right  of  possession 
on  the  sea.'  Accursius  t  said  that  such  a  right  could  be  ac- 
quired by  privilege  or  custom.  But  this  addition  which  in 
no  v/ay  agrees  with  the  text  of  the  jurist  seems  to  be  rather 
the  interpretation  of  a  mischievous  guesser  than  of  a  faith- 
ful interpreter.  The  real  meaning  of  the  words  of  Paulus 
has  been  already  explained.  Besides,  if  more  careful  con- 
sideration had  been  given  to  the  words  of  Ulpian  *  which 
almost  immediately  precede  those  of  Paulus,  a  very  diflPer- 
cnt  assertion  would  have  been  made.  For  Ulpian  acknowl- 
edges that  if  any  one  is  prohibited  from  fishing  in  front  of 

■  Inrhlnhdin  VIII,  o.  OH. 

'  Aiip-liis  Arrtinus  nn  Dip-st  I,  8;  Bnlliii!i,  Dr  prapsrriptionihus  IV,  5,  q. 
''.  II.   .';   M'C   Vflsqiiiiis,  Cnnfroversifte   illustrrs  o,   29,   n.  38. 

'  On  Digrst  XI.VII.  10,  11. 

'I%rst    XI.VII,   10,   13. 

*  I. See  ohnpter  XI.] 

f  I  l"r«m-isru,s  (?)  Acciirsiu.s  (?l.'i!))  («  pupil  of  tlic  famous  .Monarrhs 
.jiiri^  .■\/7.<,).  with  whose  name  the  Glotsa  .Mnfrna  is  Hlmo^t  sjlionyniDus.  He  wa« 
iMlIrd  .Advoraturum  Idolum.l 


52 


MARE  LIBERVM 


patiun;*  hoc  est  receptiim  consuetudine,  sed  nuUo  iure, 
ideoque  iniuriarum  actionem  prohibito  non  denegandam. 

Contemiiit  igitur  hunc  morem,  et  usiirpationem  vocat,  ut 
et  inter  Christianos  Doctores  Ambrosius.'  Et  merito.  Quid 
enim  clarius  quam  non  valere  consuetudinem,  quae  iuri 
naturae,  aut  gentium  ex  adverse  opponitur?'  Consuetude 
enim  species  est  iuris  positivi,  quod  legi  perpetuae  obrogare 
non  potest.  Est  autem  lex  ilia  perpetua  ut  Mare  omnibus 
usu  conmiune  sit.  Quod  autem  in  praescriptione  diximus, 
idem  in  consuetudine  verum  est,  si  quis  eorum  qui  diversum 
tradiderunt  sensus  excutiat,  non  aliud  reperturum,  quam 
consuetudii...  1  privilegio  parari.  Atqui  adversus  genus 
humanum  cancedendi  privilegium  nemo  habet  potestatem; 
quare  inter  diversas  respublicas  consuetudo  ista  vim  non 
habet. 

Verum  omnem  hanc  quaestionem  diligentissime  tractavit 
Vasquius,*  decus  illud  Hispaniae,  cuius  nee  in  explorando 
iure  subtilitatem,  nee  in  docendo  libertatem  umquam  de- 
sideres.  Is  igitur  posita  thesi : '  Loca  publica  et  iure  gentium 
communia  praescribi  non  posse ',  quam  multis  firmat  auctori- 
bus ;  exceptiones  deinde  subiungit  ab  Angelo  et  aliis  confictas, 
quab  supra  retulimus.  Haec  autem  examinaturus  recte 
iudicat  istarum  rerum  veritatem  pendere  a  vera  iuris,  tam 
naturae  quam  gentium  cognitione.    lus  enim  naturae  cum  a 

'  Cf.  Gloss,  eodera  loco. 

'  De  offiolis  ministrnrtim  I.  J8;  Gentilia  I,  1!)  (sub  flncm). 
'  Aufh.  I't  rmlli  ludidini  .)  1,  o.  mm  tHnto  cle  consuetudine. 
'  Controversiuf  Ulustres  c.  »9.  n.  13  et  seq. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  52 

my  house,  such  prohibition  is  a  usurpation  of  right,*  allowed, 
it  is  true,  by  custom,  but  based  on  no  law,  and  that  an  action 
for  damages  could  not  be  denied  the  person  thus  prohibited 
from  fishing. 

He  therefore  condemns  this  practice,  and  calls  it  a 
usurpation;  of  the  Christian  jurists  Ambrose '  does  likewise, 
and  both  are  right.  For  what  is  clearer  than  that  custom 
is  not  valid  when  it  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  law  of 
nature  or  of  nations  ? "  Indeed,  custom  is  a  sort  of  affirmative 
right,  which  cf.nnot  invalidate  general  or  universal  law. 
And  it  is  a  universal  law  that  the  sea  and  its  use  is  com- 
mon to  all.  Moreover  what  we  have  said  about  prescription 
applies  with  equal  truth  and  force  to  custom;  and  if  any 
one  should  investigate  the  opinions  of  those  who  have  dif- 
fered upon  this  matter,  he  would  find  no  other  opinion 
but  that  custom  is  established  by  privilege.  No  one  has 
the  power  to  confer  a  privilege  which  is  prejudicial  to  the 
rights  of  the  human  race;  wherefore  such  a  custom  has  no 
force  as  between  different  states. 

This  entire  question  however  has  been  most  thoroughly 
treated  by  Vasquez,*  that  glory  of  Spain,  who  leaves  noth- 
ing ever  to  be  desired  when  it  comes  to  subtle  examination 
of  the  law  or  to  the  exposition  of  the  principles  of  liberty, 
he  lays  down  this  thesis:  '  Places  public  and  common  to  all 
by  the  law  of  nations  cannot  become  objects  of  prescription  '. 
This  thesis  he  supports  by  many  authorities,  and  then  he 
subjoins  the  objections  fabricated  by  Angeli  and  others, 
which  we  have  enumerated  above.  But  before  examining 
tliese  objections  he  makes  the  just  and  reasonable  statement 
that  the  truth  of  all  these  matters  depends  upon  a  true  con- 
ception both  of  the  law  of  nature  and  the  law  of  nations. 

'Olossators  on  the  reference  in  note  ♦,  pajjc  51. 
'  De  offlclls  mlnisfrorum  I,  28;  Uentili.s  I,  19. 
'  Aufh.  rt  niilli  Iiidinim  §  1,  r.  nim  tnntn  dc  ronsiicfudinp. 
'Controversinr  lUustres  c.  89,  n.  lift.     [Frninpiml  Manrliaca  V.TJqtipi;  (H09- 
.i.;G)  »hr  f3nv-"5  Spanish  juriiCOiiiuU,  whn  held  many  high  iiuiiuis  of  ;:  ■    ifuliii]. 


'Sf; 


53 


MARE  LIBERVM 


divina  veniat  providentia,  esse  imniutabile.  Huius  autem 
iuris  naturalis  partem  esse  ius  gentium,  primaevum  quod 
dieitur,  diversum  a  iure  gentium  secundario  sive  positive, 
quorum  posterius  mutari  potest.  Nam  si  qui  mores  cum  lure 
gentium  primaevo  repugnent,  hi  non  humani  sunt  ipso  iudice, 
sed  FER^NI,  corruptelae  et  abusus,  non  leges  et  usus. 
Itaquf:  nuUo  tempore  praescribi  potuerunt,  nulla  lata  lege 
iustifi  ari,  nullo  multarum  etiam  gentium  consensu,  hospitio, 
et  exercitatione  stabiliri,  quod  exemplis  aliquot  et  Alphonsi 
Castrensis  Theologi  Hispani  testimonio  confirmat.' 

'  Ex  quibus  apparet ',  inquit, '  quam  suspecta  sit  sententia 
eorum,  quos  supra  retulimus,  existimantium  Genuenses,  aut 
etiam  Venetos  posse  non  iniuria  prohibere  alios  navigare  per 
Gulfum  aut  pelagus  sui  maris,  quasi  aequora  ipsa  praescrip- 
serint,  id  quod  non  solum  est  contra  leges,"  sed  etiam  est  con- 
tra ipsum  ius  naturae,  aut  gentium  primaevum,  quod  mutari 
non  pcsse  diximus.  Quod  sit  contra  illud  ius  constat,  quia 
non  solum  maria  aut  aequora  eo  iure  communia  erant  sed 
etiam  rcliquae  omnes  res  immobiles.  Et  licet  ab  eo  iure 
postea  recessum  fuerit  ex  parte,  puta  quoad  dominium  et 
proprietatem  terrarum,  quarum  dominium  iure  Naturae  com- 
mune, distinctum  et  divisum,  sicque  ab  ilia  communionc  so- 
gregatum  fuit;  tamen  '  diversum  fuit  et  est  in  dominio  maris, 

'  Dp  pntestate  lepis  poenalis  II,  U,  part.  5TJ. 

'  Dipost  XM,  1,  U  (De  .KitiuiiTrKlo  renim  dominio,  I„  Quod  in  lltore):  XI, I. 
3  (De  UMicapionilms,  L.  fin.  in  prin.) ;  Institutes  II,  1.  2  (I)e  rcrum  divi-hm<-, 
§  Klnminn.  v.  omnibus);  Digest  XI. IV,  3,  7  (De  divrrsi-i  temporalilius  pnie- 
scripfionil.us,  I,.  Si  quisquam);  XI.VII,  10,  H  (De  iniuriis.  I,.  Snnr  .si  mnri  ). 

•  Digest  I,  I,  5  (De  iustitia  et  iure,  L.  Ex  hoc  iure);  In.stitul«'s  I,  3  (De  iurf 
nnturali  et  gentium  et  rivili,  §  3,  v.  ius  autcm  gentium). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


53 


For,  since  the  law  of  nature  arises  out  of  Divine  Providence, 
it  is  immutable;  but  a  part  of  this  natural  law  Is  the  primary 
or  primitive  law  of  nations,  differing  from  the  secondary  or 
positive  law  of  nations,  which  is  mutable.  For  if  there  are 
customs  incompatible  with  the  primary  law  of  nations,  then, 
according  to  the  judgment  of  Vasquez,  they  are  not  customs 
belonging  to  men,  but  to  wild  beasts,  customs  which  are 
corruptions  and  abuses,  not  laws  and  usages.  Therefore 
those  customs  cannot  become  prescriptions  by  mere  lapse 
of  time,  cannot  be  justified  by  the  passage  of  any  law,  can- 
not be  established  by  the  consent,  the  protection,  or  the 
practice  even  of  many  nations.  These  statements  he  con- 
firms by  a  number  of  examples,  and  particularly  by  the 
testimony  of  Alphonse  de  Castro  '  the  Spanish  theologian. 

'  It  is  evident  therefore  ',  he  says,  '  how  much  to  be  sus- 
pected is  the  opinion  of  those  persons  mentioned  above,  who 
think  that  the  Genoese  or  the  Venetians  can  without  injus- 
tice prohibit  other  nations  from  navigating  the  gulfs  or  bays 
of  their  respective  seas,  as  if  they  had  a  prescriptive  right  to 
the  very  water  itself.  Such  an  act  is  not  only  contrary  to 
the  laws,'  but  is  contrary  also  to  natural  law  or  the  primary 
law  of  nations,  which  we  have  said  is  immutable.  And  this 
is  seen  to  be  true  because  by  that  same  law  not  only  the  seas 
or  waters,  but  also  all  other  immovables  were  res  communes. 
Ant'  although  in  later  times  there  was  a  partial  abandon- 
ment of  that  law,  in  so  far  as  concerns  sovereignty  and 
ownership  of  lands— which  by  natural  law  at  first  were 
held  in  common,  then  distinguished  and  di. ided,  and  thus 
finally  separated  from  the  primitive  community  of  use;— 
nevertheless  '  it  was  different  as  regards  sovereignty  over  the 
sea,  which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  down  to  this 

'De  potestate  lc,<is  poenalis  II,  li,  part  573  [Alphonse  de  Castro  (?-lSi8). 
Tl:e(il<)friiin  at  Salamanea,  confessor  to  the  '.Cmperor  Charles  V.l. 

■  I%est  XM,  I.  U;  XLI,  ;i;  Institutes  II.  1,  .';  Digest  XLIV,  3,  7;  XLVII. 

"  Digest  I,  1,  5;  Institufis  I,  J,  §  1. 


at 
•If 


04 


MARE  LIBERVM 


quod  ab  origine  Mundi,  ad  hodiernum  usque  diem  est,  fuitque 
semper  in  communi,  nulla  ex  parte  immutatum,  ut  est 
notum '. 

•  Et  quamvis  ex  LVSITANIS  magnam  turbam  saepe 
audiverim  in  hac  esse  opinione  ut  eorimi  Rex  ita  praescrip- 
serit  navigationem  INDICI  Occidentalis  (forte  Orientalis) 
eiusdemque  VASTISSIMI  MARIS,  ita  ut  reliquis  gentibus 
aequora  ilia  transfretare  non  liceat,  et  ex  nostrismet  HIS- 
PANIS  VVLGVS  in  eadem  opinione  fere  esse  videtur,  ut 
per  VASTISSIMVM  IMMENSVMQVE  PONTVM  ad 
Indorum  regiones  quas  potentissimi  Reges  nostri  subegerunt 
reliquis  mortalium  navigare  praeterquam  Hispanis  ius 
minime  sit,  quasi  ab  eis  id  ius  praescriptum  fuerit,  tamen 
istorum  omnium  non  minus  INSANAE  sunt  opiniones, 
quam  eorum  qui  quoad  Genuenses  et  Venetos  in  eodem  fere 
SOJMNIO  esse  adsolent,  quas  sententias  INEPTIRE  vel 
ex  eo  dilucidius  apparet,  quod  istarum  nationum  singulae 
contra  seipsas  nequeunt  praescribere :  mc  est,  non  respublica 
Venetiarum  contra  semetipsam,  non  respublica  Genuensiuin 
contra  semetipsam,  non  Regnum  Hispanicum  contra  semel- 
ipsimi,  non  Regnum  Lusitanicum  contra  semetipsum/  Esse 
enim  debet  differentia  inter  agentem  et  patientem '. 

'  Contra  reliquas  vero  nationes  longe  minus  praescribere 
possunt,  quia  ius  praescriptionum  est  mere  civile,  ut  fuse 
ostendimus  supra.  Ergo  tale  ius  cessat  cum  agitur  inter 
principes  vel  populos,  supcriorem  non  rccognoscentes  in  tcin- 
poralibus.     lura  enim  mere  civilia  cuiuscumque  region  is, 

'  niirpst  XLI.  3,  4,  26  (27)  (He  usucapionihus.  I,.  Srqnitur  §  Si  viam); 
Institutes  IV,  6,  H  (De  actionibus,  §  Sic  ifaque);  Ut  tlictls  juribus  et  I.,  nim 
filio,  ubi  mnltn  per  Bartolum  et  Jason  on  Digest  XXX,  U  (De  Legatis  I,  I..  Cum 
Alio;  part.  I  in  pr.  qu.  3  et  4). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  54 

veiy  day  is  and  always  has  been  a  res  communis,  and  which, 
as  is  well  known,  has  in  no  wise  changed  from  that  status. 

'  And  although ',  he  continues, '  I  have  often  heard  that 
a  great  many  Portuguese  believe  that  their  king  has  a  pre- 
scriptive right  over  the  navigation  of  the  vast  seas  of  the 
West  Indies  (probably  the  East  Indies  too)  such  that  other 
nations  are  not  allowed  to  traverse  those  waters;  and  al- 
though the  common  people  among  our  own  Spaniards  seem 
to  be  of  the  same  opinion,  namely,  that  absolutely  no  one 
in  the  world  except  us  Spaniards  ourselves  has  the  least 
right  +o  navigate  the  great  and  immense  sea  which  stretches 
to  the  regions  of  the  Indies  once  subdued  by  our  most  pow- 
erful kings,  as  if  that  right  has  been  ours  alone  by  prescrip- 
tion; although,  I  repeat,  I  have  heard  both  these  things, 
nevertheless  the  belief  of  all  those  people  is  no  less  extrava- 
gantly foolish  than  that  of  those  who  are  always  cherishing 
the  same  delusions  with  respect  to  the  Genoese  and  Vene- 
tians. Indeed  the  opinions  of  them  all  appear  the  more 
manifestly  absurd,  because  no  cne  of  those  nations  can 
erect  a  prescription  against  itself;  that  is  to  say,  not  the 
Venetian  republic,  nor  the  Genoese  republic,  nor  the  king- 
dom of  Spam  nor  of  Portugal  can  raise  prescriptions  against 
rights  they  already  possess  by  nature.'  For  the  one  who 
claims  a  prescriptive  right  and  the  one  who  suffers  by  the 
establishment  of  such  a  claim  must  not  '»e  one  and  the  same 
person. 

'Against  other  nations  they  are  even  much  less  com- 
petent to  raise  a  prescription,  because  the  right  of  prescrip- 
*'f'n  is  only  a  municipal  right,  as  we  have  shown  above  at 
some  length.  Therefore  such  a  right  ceases  to  have  any 
effect  as  between  rulers  or  nations  who  do  not  recognize  a 
superior  in  the  temporal  domain.  For  so  far  as  the  merely 
municipal  laws  of  any  place  are  concerned,  they  do  not 

•  Di>st  XLI,  3,  4,  26  (27) ;  Institutes  IV,  6,  U;  Bartolus  and  Jason  on 
Digest  XXX,  11, 


55 


MARE  LIBERVM 


quoad  exteros  populos,  nationes,  vel  etiam  homines  singulos, 
non  magis  sunt  in  consideratione,  quam  si  re  vera  esset  tale 
ius,  aut  numquam  fuisset,  et  ad  ius  commune  gentium  pri- 
maevum  vel  secundarium  recurrendum  est,  eoque  utenduin, 
quo  iure  talem  maris  praescriptionem  et  usurpationem  ad- 
missam  non  f  uisse  satis  constat.  Nam,  et  hodie  usus  aquarum 
communis  est,  non  secus  quam  erat  ab  origine  Mundi,  Er^^o 
et  in  aequoribus  et  aquis  nullum  ius  est  aut  esse  potest  hu- 
mano  generi,  praeterquam  quoad  usum  communem.  Prae- 
terea  de  iure  naturali  et  divino  est  illud  prneceptum,  ut  Quod 
tihi  non  vis  fieri,  altcrinon  facias.  Vnde  cum  navigatio  neniini 
possit  esse  nociva  nisi  ipsi  naviganti,  par  est  ut  nemini  possit, 
aut  debeat  impediri,  ne  in  re  sua  natura  libera,  sibique  minime 
noxia  navigantium  libertatem  impediat,  et  laedat  contra  dic- 
tum praeceptum  et  contra  regulam  praesertim  cum  omnia 
intelligantur  esse  permissa,  quae  non  reperiuntur  expressim 
prohibita.'  Quinimo  non  solum  contra  ius  naturale  esset. 
velle  impedire  talem  navigationem,  sed  etiam  tenemur  con- 
trarium  facere,  hoc  est,  prodesse  iis  quibus  possumus,  cum  id 
sine  damno  nostro  fieri  potest '. 

Quod  cum  multis  auctoritatibus  tam  divinis  quam  hu- 
manis  confirmasset,  subiungit  postea:'  'Ex  superioriI)us 
etiam  apparet  suspectam  esse  sententiam  lohannis  Fabii, 
Angeli,  Baldi,  et  Francisci  Balbi,  quos  supra  retulimus,  cx- 
istimantium  loca  iuris  gentium  communia,  et  si  acquiri  non 
possint  praescriptione,  posse  tamen  acquiri  consuetudirie. 

'  Digest  I,  5,  4  (De  statu  hominum,  L.  l.ibcrtas);  Institutes  I.  3,  1  (De  iure 
personarum,  §  Et  lil)erta.s);  Digest  XLIII,  39,  1  et  2  (De  hotnine  libero  n- 
hibendn);  XMV,  5,  1  (Quarum  rorum  actio  non  datur.  L.  lusiurandum,  §  Qui' 
onerandac)i  Code  III,  29,  35  (De  inofficioso  testamento,  L.  Si  quando,  §  Illiul, 
V.  adstringcndos);  Digest  IV,  6,  29  (Ex  quibus  eausis  maiores,  L.  Ncc  n.m, 
§  '  Quod  eius  '). 

'  Code  III,  4+,  7  (De  relipiosis  et  sumpfibiis  funcnim.  L.  Statuas). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


55 


affect  foreign  peoples,  nations,  or  even  individuals,  any 
more  than  if  they  did  not  exist  or  never  had  existed.    There- 
fore it  was  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the  common  law 
of  nations,  primary  as  well  as  secondary,  and  to  use  a  law 
which  clearly  had  njt    dmitted  any  such  prescription  and 
usurpation  of  the  sej..    For  today  the  use  of  the  waters  is 
common,  exactly  as  it  has  been  since  the  creation  of  the 
world.     Therefore  no  man  has  a  right  nor  can  acquire  a 
right  over  the  seas  and  waters  which  would  be  prejudicial 
to  their  common  use.    Besides,  there  is  both  in  natural  and 
divine  law  that  famous  rule:  '  Whatsoever  ye  would  that 
men  should  not  do  to  you,  do  not  ye  even  so  to  them '. 
Hence  it  follows,  since  navigation  cannot  harm  any  one 
except  the  navigator  himself,  it  is  only  just  that  no  one 
either  can  or  ought  to  be  interdicted  therefrom,  lest  nature, 
free  in  her  own  realm,  and  least  hurtful  to  herself,  be  found 
impeding  the  liberty  of  navigation,   and   thus  offending 
against  the  accepted  precept  and  rule  that  all  things  are 
supposed  to  be  permitted  which  are  not  found  expressly 
forbidden.'    Besides,  not  only  would  it  be  contrary  to  nat- 
ural law  to  wish  to  prevent  such  free  navigation,  but  we  are 
even  bound  to  do  the  opposite,  that  is,  bound  to  assist  such 
navigation  in  whatever  way  we  can,  when  it  can  be  done 
without  any  prejudice  to  ourselves  '. 

After  Vasquez  had  established  his  point  by  the  help  of 
many  authorities  both  human  and  divine,  he  added :=  'It 
appears  then,  from  what  has  gone  before  that  the  opinion 
held  by  Johannes  Faber,  Angeli,  Baldus,  and  Franciscus 
Balbus,  whom  we  have  cited  above,  is  not  to  be  trusted,  be- 
cause they  think  that  places  common  by  the  law  of  nations, 
even  if  not  ojien  to  acquisition  by  prescription,  can  never- 
theless be  acquired  by  custom;  but  this  is  entirely  false,  and 


Digest    I,   5,   ♦;    Institutes    I,  a,   1;   Digest   XLIII.   59,    1- 
(-.il,-  III.  JH,  3.5;  DiKest  IV,  6.  2«. 
■  I  )ilf  III.   U.  7. 


XLIV,    5,    1; 


56 


MARE  LIBERVM 


quod  omnino  FALSVM  est,  eaque  traditio  CAECA  ET 
NVBILA  est,  OMNIQVE  RATIONIS  LVMINE 
CARENS,  legemque  verbis  non  rebus  imponens/  In  ex- 
emplis  enim  de  Mari  Hispanorum,  LVSITANORVM, 
Venetorum,  Genuensium,  et  reliquorum,  constat  consuetu- 
dine  ius  tale  navigandi,  et  alios  navigare  prohibendi  non 
magis  acquiri  quam  praescriptione.*  Vtroque  enim  casu  ut 
apparet,  eadem  est  ratio.  Et  quia  per  iura  et  rationes  supra 
relatas  id  esset  contra  naturalem  aequitatem,  nee  ullam 
induceret  utilitatem,  sed  solam  laesionem,  sicque  ut  lege  ex- 
pressa  introduci  non  possent,  ita  etiam  nee  lege  tacita,  quails 
est  consuetude'  Et  tempore  id  non  iustificaretur,  sed  potius 
deterius  et  iniurius  in  dies  fieret '. 

Ostendit  deinde  ex  prima  terrarum  occupatione  posse 
populo  ut  venandi  ius,  ita  piscandi  in  suo  flumine  competere, 
et  postquam  ilia  semel  ab  antiqua  commimione  separata 
sunt,  ita  ut  particularem  applicationem  admittant,  praescrip- 
tioiie  icmporis  eius,  cuius  initi  memoria  non  exstet,  quasi 
tacita  populi  concessione  acquiri  posse.  Hoc  autem  per  prae- 
scriptionem  contingere,  non  per  consuetudinem,  quia  solius 
acquirentis  condicio  melior  fiat,  reliquorimi  vero  deterior.  Et 
cum  tria  enumerasset  quae  requirimtur,  ut  ius  propriuni  in 
flumine  piscandi  praescribatur: 

'  Quid  autem  ',  subdit, '  quoad  mare?    Et  in  eo  magis  est 

•  Code  VI,  43  (Commonia  de  legatis.  Contra  L.  2,  cum  vulgatis). 

•  Digest  IX,  2,  32  (Ad  lejre."  Aquiliam.  I..  Illiid). 

•  Dist.  IV.  C  II  (F.rit  autrm  lex);  Digest  I,  3,  1  et  3  (De  lepbus),  33  (eoil.  tit, 
I/.  De  quihus,  cum  seq.) ;  Decretoles  Grcgorii  Pupae  IX,  II,  26,  20  (De  prae- 
scriptionibus,  c.  Quoniam). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


56 


is  a  teaching  which  is  both  obscure  and  vague,  which  lacks 
the  faintest  glimmer  of  reasonableness,  and  whirh  sets  up  a 
law  in  word  but  not  in  fact/  For  it  is  well  established  from 
the  examples  taken  from  the  seas  of  the  Spaniards,  Portu- 
guese, Venetians,  Genoese,  and  others,  that  an  exclusive 
right  of  navigation  and  a  right  of  prohibiting  others  from 
navigation  is  no  more  to  be  acquired  by  custom  than  by 
prescription."  And  it  is  apparent  that  the  reason  is  the 
same  in  both  cases.  And  since  according  to  the  laws  and 
reasons  adduced  above  this  would  be  contrary  to  natural 
equity  and  would  not  bring  benefit  but  only  injury,  there- 
fore as  it  could  not  be  introduced  by  an  express  law,  neither 
could  it  be  introduced  by  a  tacit  or  implied  law,  and  that 
is  what  custom  is."  And  far  from  justifying  itself  by  any 
lapse  of  time,  it  rather  becomes  worse,  and  every  day  more 
injurious '. 

Vasquez  next  shows  that  from  the  time  of  the  earliest 
occupation  of  the  earth  every  people  possessed  the  right 
of  hunting  in  its  own  territory,  and  of  fishing  in  its  own 
rivers.  After  those  rights  were  once  separated  from  the 
ancient  community  of  rights  in  such  a  way  that  they  ad- 
hutted  of  particular  attachments,  they  could  be  acquired 
by  prescription  based  upon  such  an  efflux  of  time  that  "  the 
memory  of  its  beginning  does  not  exist,"  as  if  by  the 
tacit  permission  of  a  nation.  This  comes  about,  however, 
by  prescription  and  not  by  custom,  because  only  the  condi- 
tion of  him  who  acquires  is  bettered,  while  that  of  all  other 
persons  is  made  worse.  Then  after  Vasquez  had  enumerated 
three  conditions  which  are  requisite  in  order  that  a  private 
right  of  fishing  in  a  river  may  become  a  right  by  prescrip- 
tion, he  continues  as  follows: 

3  sea?    There  is 


'  Code  VI,  43. 
'  Digest  IX,  X,  S2. 
*l)ist.  IV,  C.  II;  Digest 


regards 


*  l-S,  3?:  Decretals  of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  H,  (fS  90. 


57 


MARE  LIBERVM 


quod  etiam  concursus  istorum  trium  non  sufficeret  ad  ac- 
quirendum  ius.  Ratio  differentiae  inter  mare  ex  una  parte, 
et  terram  et  flumina  ex  altera,  quia  illo  '"•sa  at  "Hun  ita  e*^ 
hodie,  et  semper,  tarn  quoad  piscandum  qu  in  quoad  navi/,  m- 
dum  mansit  integrum  ius  gentium  j  'ihaovuni,  i  .que 
umquam  fuit  a  communione  hominum  separatum!  .-t  .ilicui, 
vel  aliquibus  applicatum.  Posteriore  autem  casu,  nempe  in 
terra  vel  fluminibus  aliud  fuit,  ut  iam  disseruimus  '. 

'  Sed  quare  ius  gentium  secundarium,  ut  eam  separa- 
tionem  quoad  terras  et  flumina  facit,  quoad  mare  faccre 
desiit?  respondeo,  quia  illo  casu  expediebat.  Constat  eniin 
quod  si  multi  venenta/,  aut  piscentur  in  terra  vel  fluminc, 
facile  nemus  feris,  et  flumen  piscibus  evacuatimi  redditur, 
id  quod  in  mari  non  est.  Item  fluminum  navigatio  facile 
deterior  fit  et  impeditur  per  aedificia,  quod  in  mari  non  ist. 
Item  per  aquaeductus  facile  evacuatur  flumen,  non  ita  in 
mari ; '  ergo  in  utroque  non  est  par  ratio  '. 

'  Nee  ad  rem  pertinet,  quod  supra  diximus,  commuiuni 
esse  usu'n  aquarum,  fontium  etiam  et  fluminum.  Nam  in- 
telligitur  quoad  bibendum  et  similia,  quae  fluminis  dominium 
aut  ius  habenti  vel  minime  vel  levissime  nocent.'  Minima 
enim  in  consideratione  non  sunt.  Pro  nostris  sententiis  faoit, 
quia  iniqua  nullo  tempore  praescribuntur,  et  ideo  lex  iniqua 
nullo  lempore  praescribitur,  aut  iustificatur  '.    Mox :  '  Et 

•Diftcst  Xl.m,  13  (Ni-  quid  in  flumine  publico  fiat). 

"  I)i(fi'.-,t  IV,  4,  3  {Dv  uiinuriljus,  L.  3,  jj  Stio)  i  Vavquius,  Ut  successiotmra 
progrr^isu  I,  7. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  57 

more  to  say  about  it,  because  even  the  combination  of  the 
three  conditions  mentioned  is  not  sufficient  here  for  the  ac- 
quisition of  such  a  right.  The  reason  for  the  difference  be- 
tween the  sea  on  one  hand  and  land  and  rivers  on  the  other, 
is  that  in  the  case  of  the  sea  the  same  primitive  right  of 
nations  regarding  fishing  and  navigation  which  existed  in 
the  earliest  times,  still  today  exists  undiminished  and  always 
will,  and  because  that  right  was  never  separated  from  the 
community  right  of  all  mankind,  and  attached  to  any  person 
or  group  of  persons.  But  in  the  latter  case,  that  of  the  land 
and  rivers,  it  was  different,  as  we  have  already  set  forth. 

'  But  why,  it  is  asked,  does  the  secondary  law  of  nations 
which  brings  about  this  separation  when  we  consider  lands 
and  rivers  cease  to  operate  in  the  same  way  when  we  con- 
sider the  sea?  I  reply,  because  in  the  former  case  it  was 
expedient  and  necessary.  For  every  one  admits  that  if  a 
great  many  persons  hunt  on  the  land  or  fish  in  a  river, 
the  forest  is  easily  exhausted  of  wild  animals  and  the  river 
of  fish,  but  such  a  contingency  is  impossible  in  the  case 
of  the  sea.  Again,  the  navigation  of  rivers  is  easily  lessened 
and  impeded  by  constructions  placed  therein,  but  this  is  not 
true  of  the  sea.  Again,  a  river  is  easily  emptied  by  means 
of  aqueducts  but  the  sea  cannot  be  emptied  by  any  such 
means.'    Therefore  there  is  not  equal  reason  on  both  sides. 

'  Neitner  does  what  we  have  said  above  about  the  com- 
mon use  of  waters,  springs,  and  rivers,  apply  in  this  case, 
for  common  use  is  recognized  in  them  all  for  purposes  of 
dnnkmg  and  the  like,  such  usages  namely  as  do  not  injure 
at  all  or  in  the  slightest  degree  him  who  owns  a  river  or 
has  some  other  right  in  one.'  These  are  trifles  for  which  we 
lave  no  time.  What  makes  for  our  contention  is  the  fact 
that  no  lapse  of  time  will  give  a  prescriptive  right  to  any- 
thing unjust.    Therefore  an  unjust  law  is  not  capable  of 


'nip.st  xi.iii.  IS. 

IJigrst  IV,  4,  3i  Vasquiuj,  I>  suoces^ianum 


progTftsa  J, 


58 


MARE  LIBEFVM 


quae  sunt  impraescriptibilia  ex  legis  dispositione,  nee  per 
mille  annos  praescriberentur ' ;  quod  innumeris  doctorum 
testimoni. .  fulcit.' 

Nemo  iam  non  videt,  ad  usum  rei  communis  intercipien- 
dum  nuUam  quantivis  temporis  usurpationem  prodesse.  Cui 
adiungendum  est  etiam  eorum  qui  dissentiunt  auctoritatein 
huic  quaestioni  non  posse  accommodari.  lUi  enim  de  JVIedi- 
terraneo  loquuntur,  nos  de  Oceano;  illi  de  sinu,  nos  de  iiii- 
nienso  mari,  quae  in  ratione  occupationis  plurimum  differunt. 
Et  quibus  illi  indulgent  praescriptionem,  illi  litora  mari  con- 
tinua  possident,  ut  Veneti  et  Genuenses,  quod  de  Lusitanis 
dici  non  posse  modo  patuit. 

Immo  et  si  prodesse  posset  tempus,  ut  quidam  posse 
putant  in  publicis  quae  sunt,  populi,  tamen  non  ea  adsunt 
quae  necessario  requiruntur.  Primum  enim  docent  onines 
desidcrari,  ut  is  qui  praescribit  huiusmodi  actum,  eum  exer- 
cuerit  non  longo  dumtaxat  tempore,  sed  memoriam  cxce- 
dente;  deinde  ut  tanto  tempore  eundem  actum  nemo  a) '.is 
exercuerit,  nisi  concessione  illius,  vel  clandestine;  practcrca 
ut  alios  uti  volentes  prohibuerit,  scientibus  quidem  et  patien- 

•  Balbus,  De  praescriptinnibiis  5  in  pr.  in  qu.  11,  lUius  5,  quaest.  pr.  (il.  in 
rap.  inter  rnelcra  Ifi,  q.  :i;  fastrensi*.  De  potestnfe  '"ills  piK'niilis  II,  It; 
Hallms,  and  Anjielus,  on  Code  VII,  39,  4  (De  praesrripUone  XXX  vel  XL 
annorum,  L.  Oninrs). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEA 


58 


erecting  a  prescriptive  right  or  of  being  justified  by  efflux  of 
time  '.  A  little  farther  on  Vas^  \iez  says:  '  Things  which  are 
imprescriptible  by  the  disposition  of  the  law,  may  not  be- 
come objects  of  prescription  even  after  the  lapse  of  a  thou- 
sand years  '.  This  statement  he  supports  by  countless  cita- 
tions from  the  jurists.*^ 

Every  one  perceives  that  no  usurpation  no  matter  how 
long  continued  is  competent  to  intercept  the  use  of  a  res 
communis.  And  it  must  also  be  added,  that  the  authority 
of  thoo^  who  hold  dissenting  opinions  cannot  possibly  be 
applied  to  the  question  here  at  issue.  For  they  are  talking 
about  the  Mediterranean,  we  are  talking  about  the  Ocean; 
they  speak  of  a  gulf,  we  of  the  boundless  sea;  and  from  the 
point  of  view  of  occupation  these  are  wholly  different  things. 
And  too,  those  peoples,  to  whom  the  authorities  just  men- 
tioned concede  prescription,  the  Venetians  and  Genoese  for 
example,  possess  a  continuous  shore  line  on  the  sea,  but 
it  is  clear  that  not  even  that  kind  of  possession  can  be  claimed 
for  the  Portug 

Further,  even  if  mere  lapse  of  time,  as  some  think,  could 
establish  a  right  by  prescription  over  public  property,  still 
the  conditions  absolutely  indispensable  for  the  creation  of 
such  a  right  are  in  this  case  absent.  The  conditi  ms  de- 
manded are  these:  first,  all  jurists  teach  that  he  who  sets 
up  a  prescriptive  right  of  this  sort  shall  have  been  in  actual 
possession  not  only  for  a  considerable  period,  but  from  time 
immemorial;  next,  that  during  all  that  time  no  one  else 
shall  have  exercised  the  same  right  of  possession  unless  by 
permission  of  that  possessor  or  clandestinely;  besides  that, 
it  is  n^,x?ssary  that  be  shall  have  prevented  other  persons 
wishing  to  use  his  possession  from  so  doing,  and  that  such 
measures  be  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  and  done  by 
the  suffrance  of  those  concerned  in  the  matter.    For  even  if 

'  Ilnlbus.  Pf  proMcrlptlonlhiis  J,  II;  Ifi.  9;  Alphonsc-  dc  Castro.  De  potrstnte 
Ifgis  pornalls  11,  14 1  n«lbu8  and  Angilus  on  Ctxlc  VII,  39.  4. 


>  MARE  LIBERVM 

tibus  iis  ad  quos  ea  res  pertinebat;  nam  etsi  exercuisset  sem- 
per, et  quosdam  exercere  volentes  prohibuisset  semper,  non 
tamen  omnes,  quia  alii  fuerunt  prohibiti,  alii  vero  libere 
exercuerunt,  id  quidem  non  sufiiceret,  ex  Doctorum  sen- 
tentia. 

Apparet  autem  debere  haec  omnia  concurrere,  turn  quia 
praescriptioni  publicarum  rerum  lex  inimica  est,  turn  ut 
videatur  praescribens  iure  suo  non  autem  communi  usus, 
idque  non  interrupta  possessione. 

Cum  autem  tempus  postulatur,  cuius  initi  non  exstet 
memoria,  non  semper  sufficit,  ut  optimi  interpretes  ostendunt, 
probare  saeculi  lapsum;  sed  constare  oportct  famam  rei  a 
maioribus  ad  nos  transmissam,  ita  ut  nemo  supersit  qui  con- 
trarium  viderit,  aut  audierit.  Occasione  rerum  Africanaruin 
in  ulteriora  primum  Oceani  inquirere  coeperunt  regnante 
lohanne  Lusitani,'  anno  salutis  millesimo  quadringentesinio 
septuagesimo  septimo.  Viginti  post  annis,  sub  Rege 
Emanuele  promontorium  Bonae  spei  praeternavigatimi  est, 
seriusque  multo  ventimi  Malaccam,  et  insulas  remotiores,  ad 
quas  Batavi  navigare  coeperunt  anno  millesimo  quingen- 
tesimo  nonagesimo  quinto,  non  dubie  intra  annum  centesi- 
mum.  lam  vero  etiam  eo  quod  intercessit  tempore  alioruni 
usurpatio  adversus  alios  etiam  omncs  impedivit  praescrip- 
tionem.  Castellani  ab  anno  millesimo  quingentesimo  decinio 
nono  possessionem  Lusitanis  maris  circa  Moluccas  ambiguam 

*  Osorius,  De  rebus  Eininanuelis  regis  Lusitanise  I. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  59 

he  had  continuously  exercised  his  right  of  possession,  and 
had  always  prevented  from  using  his  possession  some  of 
those  who  wished  to  do  so,  but  not  all;  then,  oecause  some 
had  been  prevented  from  exercising  and  others  freely  al- 
lowed to  exercise  that  use,  that  kind  of  possession  accord- 
iigto  the  opinion  of  the  jurists,  is  not  sufficient  to  establish 
a  right  by  prescription. 

It  is  clear  therefore  that  all  these  conditions  should  be 
present,  both  because  law  is  opposed  to  the  prescription  of 
public  things,  and  in  order  that  he  who  sets  up  such  a 
prescription  may  seem  to  have  used  his  own  private  right, 
not  a  public  right,  and  that  too  by  continuous  possession. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  time  beyond  the  period  of  the  memory 
of  man  is  demanded  for  the  creation  of  a  prescriptive  right, 
it  is  not  always  sufficient,  as  the  best  commentators  point 
out,  to  prove  the  lapse  of  a  hundred  years,  but  the  tradition 
handed  down  to  us  by  our  ancestors  ought  to  be  undisputed, 
provided  no  one  is  left  alive  who  has  seen  or  heard  anything 
to  the  contrary.  It  was  during  the  reign  of  King  John,'  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  1477,  at  the  time  of  the  wars  in  Africa, 
that  the  Portuguese  began  to  push  their  discoveries  first 
into  the  more  distant  parts  of  the  Ocean.  Twenty  years 
later,  during  the  reign  of  King  Emmanuel,  they  rounded 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  somewhat  later  yet,  reached 
.Alalacca,  and  the  islands  beyond,  the  very  islands,  indeed,  to 
which  t:.e  Dutch  began  to  sail  in  the  year  1595,  that  is. 
well  w'thm  a  hundred  years  of  the  time  that  the  Portuguese 
hrst  arrived.  And  in  truth  even  in  that  interval,  the  usurpa- 
tion  of  rights  there  by  other  parties  had  interrupted  the 
competence  of  everybody  else  to  create  a  prescriptive  right. 
i<or  example,  from  the  year  1519,  the  Spaniards  rendered 
the  possession  by  the  Portuguese  of  the  sea  around  the 
Moluccas  a  very  uncertain  one.     Even  the  French  and 

(isw-IjKO)  was  known  aa  the  Portug«fse  Cieefo]. 


60 


MARE  LIBERVM 


fecere.  Galli  etiam  et  Angli  non  clanculum,  sed  via  aperta 
eo  perruperunt.  Praeterea  accolae  totius  tractus  Africani, 
aut  Asiatici  partem  maris  quisquc  sibi  proximam  piscando 
et  navigando  perpetuo  usurparunt,  numquam  a  Lusitanis 
prohibiti. 

Conclusum  igitur  sit,  ius  nullum  esse  Lusitanis  quo 
aliam  quamvis  gentem  a  navigatione  Oceani  ad  Indos  pro- 
hibeant. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


60 


erta 
:ani, 
inch) 
lanis 

(jun 
pro- 


English  made  their  way  to  those  newly  discovered  places 
not  secretly,  but  by  force  of  arms.  And  besides  these,  the 
inhabitants  of  the  entire  coast  of  Africa  and  Asia  con- 
stantly used  for  ashing  and  navigation  that  part  of  the  sea 
nearest  their  own  several  coasts,  and  were  never  interdicted 
from  such  use  by  the  Portuguese. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  therefore  is  that  the 
Portuguese  are  in  possession  of  no  right  whereby  they  may 
interdict  to  any  nation  whatsoever  the  navigation  of  the 
Ocean  to  the  East  Indies. 


CAPVT  VIII 

lure  gentium  inter  quoavis  liberam 
esse  mercaturam 

Quod  si  dicant  Lusitani  cum  Indis  commercia  exercendi 
ius  quoddam  proprium  ad  se  pertinere,  eisdem  fere  omnibus 
argumentis  refellentur.     Repetemus  breviter  et  aptabimus. 

lure  Gentium  hoc  introductum  est,  ut  cunctis  hominibus 
inter  se  libera  esset  negotiandi  facultas,  quae  a  nemine 
posset  adimi.'  Et  hoc,  sicut  post  dominiorum  distinctioneni 
continue  necessarium  fuit,  ita  originem  videri  potest  anti- 
quiorem  habuisse.    Subtiliter  enim  Aristoteles    tiiraflXi^-tmifv 

dixit,   OLvanXrfpaaiv   r^J   hutu    <pvatv    avTapnda?,*   hoC     est, 

negotiatione  suppleri  id  quod  naturae  deest,  quo  commode 
omnibus  sufficiat.  Oportet  igitur  communem  esse  iure 
gentium  non  tantum  privative,  sed  et  positive,  ut  dicunt 
magistri,  sire  affirmative.'  Quae  autem  illo  modo  sunt  iuris 
gentium,  mutari  possunt:  quae  hoc  modo,  ,  )n  possunt.  Id 
ita  intelligi  potest. 

Dederat  natura  omnia  omnibus.  Sed  cum  a  reruiii 
multarum  usu,  quas  vita  desiderat  humana,  locorum  intervallo 
homines  arcerentur,  quia  ut  supra  diximus,  non  omnia  ubi(iue 

'  IJiftest  I,  I,  4  (De  lustitia  ct  iure,  L.  Ex  hoc  iure) ;  et  ibi  Bartolus. 
'Aristotle,  Polifioa  I,  9  (I257»  30). 
'  Cf.  Covarruvias  in  c.  Peccatum,  §  9. 


61 


CHAPTER  VIII 


;ndi 
ibus 

lUS. 

ibus 
line 
leiii 
nti- 

est, 
ode 
ure 
lint 
iris 
Id 

uni 

lUo 
]ue 


By  the  Law  of  Nations  trade  is  free  to  all  persons 
whatsoever 

If  however  the  Portuguese  claim  that  they  have  an 
exclusive  right  to  trade  with  the  East  Indies,  their  claim 
will  be  refuted  by  practically  all  the  same  arguments  which 
already  have  been  brought  forward.  Nevertheless  I  shall 
repeat  them  briefly,  and  apply  them  to  this  particular 
claim. 

By  the  law  of  nations  the  principle  was  introduced  that 
the  opportunity  to  engage  in  trade,  of  which  no  one  can 
be  deprived,'  should  be  free  to  all  men.  This  principle, 
inasmuch  as  its  application  was  straightway  necessary  after 
the  distinctions  of  private  ownerships  were  made,  can  there- 
fore be  seen  to  have  had  a  very  remote  origin.  Aristotle, 
in  a  very  clever  phrase,  in  his  work  entitled  the  Politics,'  has 
said  that  the  art  of  exchange  is  a  completion  of  the  inde- 
pendence which  Nature  requires.  Therefore  trade  ought  to 
be  common  to  all  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  not  only 
in  a  negative  but  also  in  a  positive,  or  as  the  jurists  say, 
affirmative  sense.'  The  thmgs  that  come  under  the  former 
category  are  subject  to  change,  those  of  the  latter  category 
are  not.  This  statement  is  to  be  explained  in  the  following 
way. 

Nature  had  given  all  things  to  all  men.  But  since  men 
were  prevented  from  using  many  things  which  were  de- 
sirable in  every  day  life  because  they  lived  so  far  apart, 

'  Digest  I.  1.  5. 
'  I,  9   (125T»  30). 

'  Cf.  Co-arruvios  in  c.  Peccatum,  §  ». 

61 


f 


62 


MARE  LIBERVM 


proveniunt,  opus  fuit  traiectione;  nee  adhue  tamen  permu- 
tatio  erat,  sed  aliis  vicissim  rebus  apud  alios  repertis  suo 
arbitrio  utebantur;  quo  fere  modo  apud  Seres  dicitur  rebus 
in  solitudine  relictis  sola  mutantium  religione  peragi  com- 
mercium.* 

Sed  cum  statim  res  mobiles  monstrante  necessitate,  quae 
modo  explicata  est,  in  ius  proprium  transissent,  inventa 
est  permutatio,  qua  quod  alteri  deest  ex  eo  quod  alter! 
superest  suppleretur.'  Ita  commercia  victus  gratia  inventa 
ex  Homero  Plinius  probat.'  Postquam  vero  res  etiam 
immobiles  in  dominos  distingui  coeperunt,  sublata  undique 
communio  non  inter  homines  locorum  spatiis  discretes  tan- 
tum,  verum  etiam  inter  vicinos  necessarium  fecit  commer- 
cium;  quod  ut  facilius  procederet,  nummus  postea  ad- 
inventus  est,  dictus  dno  rov  vo/iov  quod  institutum  sit  civile.* 

Ipsa  igitur  ratio  omnium  contractuum  universalis, 
p  fieTajShfTiHtj  a  natura  est;  modi  autem  aliquot  singulares 
ipsumque  pretium,  17  xPfMariffriMtf  ah  institute; "  quae  vetus- 
tiores  iuris  interpretes  non  satis  distinxerunt.     Fatentuf 

'  Pomponius  Mela,  De  situ  orbis  III,  7, 

•  Dipest  XVHI,  1,  1   (De  contrahenda  emptione,  L.  Origo). 

•  Katiir.ilis  liistoria  XXXIII,  1. 

•Aristotle,  Ktlilcn  Nicomachea  S,  S,  11  (1133«  20):  m  (^ioei  dAAa  wS/i^  i^^'; 
Politioa  I,  9   (13i*h  10). 

•Dist.  I,  C.  VII  (Ius  naturale);  Aristot'e,  1.  c. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


62 


and  because,  as  we  have  said  above,  everythint?  was  not 
found  everywhere,  it  was  necessary  to  transport  things  from 
one  place  to  another ;  not  that  there  was  yet  an  interchange 
of  commodities,  but  that  people  were  accustomed  to  make 
reciprocal  use  of  things  found  in  one  another's  territory 
according  to  their  own  judgment.  They  say  that  trade 
arose  among  the  Chinese  in  about  this  way.  Things  were 
deposited  at  places  out  in  the  desert  and  left  to  the  good 
faith  and  conscience  of  those  who  exchanged  things  of  their 
own  for  what  they  took.' 

But  when  movables  passed  into  private  ownership  (a 
change  brought  about  by  necessity,  as  has  been  explained 
above),  straightway  there  arose  a  method  of  exchange  by 
which  the  lack  of  one  person  was  supplemented  by  that  of 
which  another  person  had  an  over  supply.^  Hence  com- 
merce was  born  out  of  necessity  for  the  commodities  of  life, 
as  Pliny  shows  by  a  citation  from  Homer.'  But  after  im- 
movables also  began  to  be  recognized  as  private  property, 
the  consequent  annihilation  of  universal  community  of  use 
made  commerce  a  necessity  not  only  between  men  whose 
habitations  were  far  apart  but  even  between  men  who  were 
neighbors ;  and  in  order  that  trade  might  be  carried  on  more 
ecsily,  somewhat  later  they  invented  money,  which,  as  the 
derivation  of  the  word  shows,  is  a  civic  institution.* 

Therefore  the  universal  basis  of  all  contracts,  namely 
exchange,  is  derived  from  nature;  but  some  particular  kinds 
of  exchange,  and  the  money  payment  itself,  are  derived  from 
law; '  although  the  older  commentators  on  the  law  have  not 
made  this  distinction  sufficiently  clear.     Nevertheless  all 

•  Pomponlus  Mela,  De  situ  orbis  III,  7. 

'  Digest  XVIII,  1,  1. 

'  Natural  History  XXXIII,  1. 

'Aristotle,  Nicomachean  Ethics  5,  S,  11  (1133»  20);  Politics  I,  9  (1257'>  10) 
[Nuinmus  =  v(i^«)f.  The  fact  that  this  is  an  incorrect  derivation  diK's  r  t  of 
course  affect  the  arRiiment]. 

'iJist.  1,  C.  VII;  Aristotle,  see  note  4  above. 


if 


I   !■ 
i  i 


69 


MARE  LIBERVM 


tamen  omnes  proprietatem  rerum,  saltern  mobilium  a  iure 
gentium  primario  prodire,  itemque  contractus  onmes  quibus 
pretium  non  accedit.'  Ph  losophi '  r^t /4«ra/3A;;r«K7f  quam 
translationem  vertere  licebit,  genera  statuunt  duo:  Tt}y 
f'^tnoptxt/y  xai  rtfv  xanrfXiH^v  quarum  e'unoptxtf  quae  ut  vox 
ipsa  indicat  inter  gentes  dissitas,  ordine  naturae  prior  est,  et 
sic  a  Platone  ponitur.'  KantfXtxif  eadem  videtur  esse  quae 
napaarafftf  *  Aristoteli,  tabemaria  sive  stataria  negotiatio 
inter  cives.  Idem  Aristoteles '  r^y  innop%xriv  dividit  in 
yavxXffpiav  et  qtopxTfyiay  quarum  haec  terrestri  itinere,  ilia 
maritimo  merces  devehit.  Sordidior  autem  est  xanrfXtn^ 
contra  honestior  itxnopixr}  et  maritima  maxime,  quia  multa 
multis  impertit.* 

Vnde  navium  exercitionem  ad  summam  rempublicam 
pertinere  dicit  Vlpianus;  institorum  non  eundem  esse  usum; 
quia  ilia  omnino  secundum  naturam  necessaria  est.  Aris- 
toteles:' (att  yap  7  ptrafiXTjTtMt)  ndvruv,  dpSa^iivtj  ro  ^iv 
npwTOv  ix  Tov  nara  <pvaiv,  ro5  ra  piiv    nXtico,    rot  ii   iXoTTco 

Tcay  ixaydy  t'xtiy  rovs  ayOpoJnovi,  '  est  enim  translatio  rerum 
omnium  coepta  ab  initio,  ab  eo  quod  est  secundum  natiu-am, 
cum  homines  partim  haberent  plura,  quam  sufficerent. 
partim  etiam  pauciora  '.  Seneca:  '  quae  emeris,  vendeie; 
gentium  ius  ♦"st '. 

Commercandi  igitur  libertas    ix  iia-e  est  primario  gen- 


'  Castrensis  nt  Cine   et  aliis 
L.  Kx  hoc  iure). 

'  Plaf  o,  Sophist"  233« 

'Plato,  Repabh    II     ti   rt-ri  -ited  in 

•  Politica  I,  ..      I2JSe  ri*3) 

KQi  ravrri^  fitpn  ■   .a,  ^soilajjuui   iMi^-n^yu.    — ;- ^frTmr;    ;ire  the  exact  words. 
•Cicero,  De  ofB»-Hs  i.  iK»-(oi;    \.rtamK.  t^oiitim  I,  9 
'  L.  c.  (lJi7«    —17' 


*  n  »'m--  r«Br«it  :.  1,  5  (De  iuititia  et  uire, 


I..    1,  ^  (De  nundinls). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


68 


authorities  agree  that  the  ownership  of  things,  particularly 
of  movables,  arises  out  of  the  primary  law  of  nations,  and 
that  all  contracts  in  which  a  price  is  not  mentioned,  are  de- 
rived from  the  same  source.'  The  philosophers '  distinguish 
two  kinds  of  exchange  using  Greek  words  which  we  shall 
take  the  liberty  to  translate  as  'wholesale'  and  'retail' 
trade.  The  former,  as  the  Greek  word  shows,  signifies 
trade  or  exchange  between  widely  separated  nations,  and  it 
ranks  first  in  the  order  of  Xature,  as  is  shown  in  Plato's 
Republic*  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  same  kind  of  ex- 
change that  Aristotle  calls  by  another  Greek  word  *  which 
means  retail  or  shop  trade  between  citizens.  Aristotle 
makes  a  further  division  of  wholesale  trade  into  overland 
and  overseas  trade."  But  of  the  two,  retail  trade  is  the  more 
petty  and  sordid,  and  wholesale  the  more  honorable;  but 
most  honorable  of  all  is  the  wholesale  overseas  trade,  because 
it  makes  so  many  people  sharers  in  so  many  things.* 

Hence  Ulpian  says  that  the  maintenance  of  ships  is  the 
highest  duty  of  a  state,  because  it  is  an  absolutely  natural 
necessity,  but  that  the  maintenance  of  hucksters  has  not  the 
same  value.  In  another  place  Aristotle  says:  "  For  the  art 
of  exchange  extends  to  all  possessions,  and  it  arises  at  first 
in  a  natural  manner  from  the  circumstance  that  some  have 
too  little,  others  too  much."  '  And  Seneca  is  also  to  be  cited 
in  this  connection  for  he  has  said  that  buying  and  selling  is 
the  law  of  nations.* 

Therefore  freedom  of  trade  is  based  on  a  primitive  right 
of  nations  which  has  a  natural  and  permanent  cause;  and 

'  C^astrensis  from  Cinus  and  others  on  Digest  I,  1,  5 

'  I'lato,  Sophista  223<l. 

'II  (p.  371)  cited  in  Digest  L,  11,  2. 

•  Politics  I,  11  (1259b  22-23). 

'  I  The  text  here  is  somewhat  expanded.] 

•Cicero,  De  officiis  I,  ISO-lil-  Aristotle,  Politics  I   9 

'  PoliUcs  I,  9  (1257.  U-H)   [Jowetfs  translation.  Vol.  I,  page  15] 

•  De  heneficiis  V.  S  [Not  a  ^notation,  but  a  .u.nming  up  of  ti..  W.apler] 


II 


r 


64 


MARE  LIBERVM 


tium,  quod  naturalem  et  perpetuam  causam  habet,  ideoque 
toUi  non  potest,  et  si  posset  non  tamen  posset  nisi  omnium 
gentium  consensu:  tantum  abest  ut  ullo  modo  gens  aliqua 
gentes  duas  inter  se  contrahere  volentes  iuste  impediat. 


k- 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


64 


so  that  right  cannot  be  destroyed,  or  at  all  events  it  may 
not  be  destroyed  except  by  the  consent  of  all  nations.  For 
surely  ro  one  nation  may  justly  oppose  in  any  way  two  na- 
tions that  desire  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  each  other. 


,<''l:= 


CAPVT  IX 

Mercaturam  cum  Indis  propriam  non 

esse  Lusitanorum  titulo 

occupationia 

Primum  inventio  aut  occupatio  hie  locum  non  habet, 
quia  ius  mercandi  non  est  aliquid  eorporale,  quod  possit 
apprehendi;  neque  prodesset  Lusitanis  etiamsi  primi  honii- 
num  cum  Indis  habuissent  commereia,  quod  tamen  non 
potest  non  esse  falsissimum.  Nam  et  cum  initio  populi  in 
diversa  iere,  aliquos  necesse  est  primos  fuisse  mercatores, 
quos  tamen  ius  nullum  acquisivisse  certo  est  certius.  Quare 
si  Lusitanis  ius  aliquod  competit,  ut  soli  cum  Indis  nego- 
tientur,  id  exeniplo  ceterarum  servitutum,  ex  concessione 
oriri  debuit  aut  expressa  aut  tacita,  hoc  est  praescriptione; 
neque  aliter  potest. 


CHAPTER  IX 

Trade  with  the  East  Indies  does  not  belong  to  the 
Portuguese  by  title  of  occupation 

Neither  discovery  nor  occupation  [which  have  been 
fully  treated  in  Chapters  II  and  V],  is  to  be  invoked  on 
the  point  here  under  consideration,  because  the  right  of 
carrying  on  trade  is  not  something  corporal,  which  can  be 
physically  seized;  nor  would  discovery  or  occupation  help 
t!  case  of  the  Portuguese  even  if  they  had  been  the  very 
first  persons  to  trade  with  the  East  Indies,  although  such 
a  claim  would  be  entirely  untenable  and  false.  For  since 
in  the  beginning  peoples  set  out  along  different  paths,  it 
was  necessary  that  some  become  the  first  traders,  never- 
theless it  is  absolutely  certain  that  those  traders  did  not 
on  that  account  acquire  any  rights.  Wherefore  if  the  Portu- 
guese have  any  right  by  virtue  of  which  they  alone  may 
trade  with  the  East  Indies,  that  right  like  other  servitudes 
ought  to  arise  from  concession,  either  express  or  tacit,  that 
is  to  say,  from  prescription.  Otherwise  no  such  right  ean 
exist. 


CAPVT  X 

Mercaturam  cum  India  propriam  non  esse 

lyusitanorum  titulo  donationis 

Pontificiae 

Concessit  nemo,  nisi  forte  Pontifex,  qui  non  potuit.' 
Nemo  enim  quod  suum  non  est  concedere  potest.  At  Pon- 
tifex, nisi  totius  Mundi  temporalis  sit  Dominus,  quod 
negant  sapientes,  ius  etiam  commerciorum  universale  sui  iuris 
dicere  non  potest.  Maxi  ae  vero  cum  res  sit  ad  solum 
quaestiun  accommodate,  nihilque  ad  spiritualem  procura- 
tionem pertinens,  extra  quam  cessat,  ut  f  atentur  omnes,  Pon- 
tiiicia  potestas.  Praeterea  si  Pontifex  solis  illud  Lusitanis 
ius  tribuere  vellet  idemque  adimere  hominibus  ceteris,  dupli- 
cem  faceret  iniuriam:  Primum  Indis,  quos  ut  extra  Eccle- 
siam  positos  Pontifici  nulla  ex  parte  subditos  esse  dixintus. 
His  igitur  cum  nihil  quod  ipsorum  est  adimere  possit  Ponti- 
fex, etiam  ius  illud  quod  habent  cum  quibuslibet  negotiandi 
adimere  non  potuit.  Deinde  aliis  hominibus  omnibus  Chris- 
tianis  et  non  Christianis,  quibus  idem  illud  ius  adimere  non 
potuit  sine  causa  indicta.  Quid  quod  ne  temporales  quicleni 
Domini  in  suis  imperiis  prohibere  possunt  commercioriun 
libertatem,  uti  rationibus  et  auctoritatibus  ante  demoiistra- 
turn  est? 

Sicut  et  illud  confitendum  est,  contra  ius  perpetiium 
naturae  gentiumque,  undc  ista  libertns  originem  sumjjsit  in 
omne  tenipus  duratura,  nullam  valere  Pontificis  auctori- 
tatcm. 

•Cf.  cap.  Ill  et  VI. 


CHAPTER  X 

Trade  with  the  East  Indies  does  not  belong  to  the  Portu- 
guese by  virtue  of  title  baaed  on  the  Papal 
Donation 

No  one  has  granted  it  except  perhaps  the  Pope,  and 
he  did  not  have  the  power.'  For  no  one  can  give  away 
what  he  does  not  himself  possess.  But  the  Pope,  unless  he 
were  the  temporal  master  of  the  whole  world,  which  sen- 
sible men  deny,  cannot  say  that  the  universal  right  in  re- 
spect of  trade  belongs  to  him.  Especially  is  this  true  since 
trade  has  to  do  only  with  material  gains,  and  has  no  con- 
cern at  all  with  spiritual  matters,  outside  of  which,  as  all 
admit.  Papal  power  ceases.  Besides,  if  the  Pope  wished 
to  give  that  right  to  the  Portuguese  alone,  and  to  deprive 
all  other  men  of  the  same  right,  he  would  be  doing  a  double 
injustice.  In  the  first  place,  he  would  do  an  injustice  to  the 
people  of  the  East  Indies  who,  placed  as  we  have  said 
outside  the  Church,  are  in  no  way  subjects  of  the  Pope. 
Therefore,  since  the  Pope  cannot  take  away  from  them 
anything  that  is  theirs,  h"  could  not  take  away  their  right 
of  trading  with  whomsoever  they  please.  In  the  second 
place,  he  would  do  an  injustice  to  all  other  men  both  Chris- 
tian and  non-Christian,  from  whom  he  could  not  take  that 
same  right  without  a  hearing.  Besides,  what  are  we  to  say 
of  the  fact  that  not  even  temporal  lords  in  their  own  do- 
minions are  competent  to  prohibit  the  freedom  of  trade,  as 
has  been  demonstrated  above  by  reasonable  and  authorita- 
tive statements? 

Therefore  it  must  be  acknowledged,  that  the  authority 
of  the  Pope  has  absolutely  no  force  against  the  eternal  law 
of  nature  and  of  nations,  from  whence  came  that  liberty 
which  is  destined  to  endure  for  ever  and  ever. 

'See  chapters  III  and  VI. 

M 


CAPVT  XI 

Mercaturam  cum  India  non  esse  Lusitanorum 

propriam  iure  praescriptionis  aut 

consuetudinis 

Restat  praescriptio,  seu  consuetudinem  mavis  diet  'e.' 
Sed  nee  huius  nee  illius  vim  esse  aliquam  inter  liberas  na- 
tiones,  aut  diversarum  gentium  Principes,  nee  adversus  ea 
quae  primigenio  iure  introducta  sunt,  cum  Vasquio  ostendi- 
mus.  Quare  et  hie  ut  ius  mercandi  proprium  fiat,  quod 
proprietatis  naturam  non  recipit,  nuUo  tempore  efficitur. 
Itaque  nee  titulus  hie  adfuisse  potest,  nee  bona  fides,  quae 
cum  manifesto  desinit,  praescriptio  secundum  Canones  non 
ius  dicetur,  sed  iniuria. 

Quin  et  ipsa  mercandi  quasi  possessio  non  ex  iure  proprio 
contigisse  videtur,  sed  ex  iure  communi  quod  ad  omnes 
aequaliter  pertinet;  sicut  contra,  quod  aliae  nationes  cum 
Indis  contrahere  forte  neglexerunt,  id  non  Lusitanorum 
gratia  fecisse  existimandi  sunt,  sed  quia  sibi  expedire  credi- 
derunt;  quod  nihil  obstat  quo  minus  ubi  suaserit  utilitas,  id 
facere  possint,  quod  antea  non  fecerint.  Certissima  enim 
ilia  regula  a  doctoribus  traditur,'  in  his  quae  sunt  arbitrii 
seu  merae  facultatis,  ita  ut  per  se  actum  tantum  facultatis 
cius,  non  autem  ius  no\'um  operentur,  nee  praescriptionis 
nee  consuetudinis  titulo  annos  etiam  mille  valituros:  quod  et 

'Cf.  cap.  VII. 

•Gloss,  ft  Bartolus  on  Digest  XLIII,  11,  2  (De  vU  publica,  I..  Viiiii 
piiWicam);  Balbus  ♦,  4  pr.  qu.  I;  Panormitanus  on  Decretales  Grfgorll  Papa* 
IX,  III,  8,  10  (De  oonres.sione  praclM-ndae.  c.  Ex  parte  Hastenen.) ;  Digest  Xr.I, 
9,  *l  (De  adqulrenda  posse-sslone,  L.  Qui  iure  famlliarltatis) ;  Covarruvias  in 
c.  possessor.  J,  §  ♦;  Vasquius,  Controversiae  Illustrrs  c.  4,  n.  10  et  12. 


67 


CHAPTER  XI 

Trade  tvith  the  East  Indies  does  not  belong  to  the  Portu- 
guese by  title  of  prescription  or  custom 

Last  of  all,  prescription,  or  if  you  prefer  the  term, 
custom.'  We  have  shown  that  according  to  Vasquez, 
neither  prescription  nor  custom  had  any  force  as  between 
free  nations  or  the  rulers  of  different  peoples,  or  any  force 
against  those  principles  which  were  introduced  by  primitive 
law.  And  here  as  before,  mere  efflux  of  time  does  not  bring 
it  to  pass  that  the  right  of  trade,  whicli  does  not  partake 
of  the  nature  of  ownership,  becomes  a  private  possession. 
Now  in  this  case  neither  title  nor  good  faith  can  be  shown, 
and  inasmuch  as  good  faith  is  clearly  absent,  according  to 
legal  rules  prescription  will  not  be  called  a  right,  but  an 
injury. 

Nay,  the  very  possession  involved  in  trading  seems  not 
to  have  arisen  out  of  a  private  right,  but  out  of  a  pubhc 
right  which  belongs  equally  to  all;  so  on  the  other  hand, 
because  nations  perhaps  neglected  to  trade  with  the  East 
Indies,  it  must  not  be  presumed  that  they  did  so  as  a  f-^vor 
to  the  Portuguese,  but  because  they  believed  it  to  be  to  their 
o\vn  best  interests.  But  nothing  stands  in  their  way,  when 
once  expediency  shall  have  persuaded  them,  to  prevent  them 
from  doing  what  they  had  not  previously  done.  For  the 
jurists '  have  handed  down  as  incontestable  the  principle  that 
A\licre  things  arbitrable  or  facultative  are  such  that  they  pro- 
duce nothing  more  than  the  facultative  act  per  se,  but  do 
not  create  a  new  right,  that  in  all  such  cases  not  even  a  thou- 
sand years  will  create  a  title  by  prescription  or  custom. 

'See  chapter  VII. 

'On  Digest  XMII,  11,  2j  Batbus  ♦,  i  pr.  qu.  1;  Panormltanus  on  the  Deore- 
tals  of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  III,  8,  lOj  Digest  XLI,  J,  41 ;  Covnrruvias  In  c.  possessor. 
••  §  *i    Va«quiu«.  Controversiae   illustrps  c.   4,  n.   10  and    M. 

07 


68 


MARE  LIBERVM 


affirmative  et  negative  procedit,  ut  docet  Vasquius.  Nee 
enim  quod  libere  feci  facere  cogor,  nee  quod  non  feci 
omittere. 

Alioquin  quid  esset  absurdius  quam  ex  eo  quod  singuli 
non  possumus  cum  singulis  semper  contrahere,  salvum 
nobis  in  posterum  non  esse  ius  cum  illis,  si  usus  tulerit,  con- 
trahendi? Idem  Vasquius  et  illud  rectissime,  ne  infinite 
quidem  tempore  effici,  ut  quid  necessitate  potius,  quam 
sponte  factum  videatur. 

Probanda  itaque  Lusitanis  foret  coactio,  quae  tamen 
ipsa  cum  hac  in  re  iuri  naturae  sit  contraria,  et  omni  homi- 
num  generi  noxia,  ius  facere  non  potest.'  Deinde  ilia 
coactio  durasse  debuit  per  tempus,  cuius  initii  non  exstet 
memoria;  id  vero  tantum  hinc  abest,  ut  ne  centum  quidem 
anni  exierint,  ex  quo  tota  fere  negotiatio  Indica  penes 
Venetos  fuit,  per  Alexandrinas  traiectiones.'  Debuit  etiam 
talis  esse  coactio,  cui  restitum  non  sit.  At  restiterunt  Galli 
et  Angli,  aliique.  Neque  sufficit  aliquos  esse  coactos,  sed  ut 
omnes  coacti  sint  requiritur,  cum  per  unum  non  coactum  ser- 
vetur  in  causa  communi  libertatis  possessio.  Arabes  autem 
et  Sinenses  a  saeculis  aliquot  ad  hunc  usque  diem  perpetuo 
cum  Indis  negotiantur. 

Nihil  prodest  ista  usurpatio. 

'  Vasquius,  I.  c.  n.  11. 

•  Guicciardlnl,  StorU  d'ltaUa  XIX. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


68 


This,  as  Vasquez  points  out,  acts  both  affirmatively  and 
negatively.  For  I  am  not  compelled  to  do  what  I  have 
hitherto  done  of  my  own  free  will,  nor  am  I  compelled  to 
stop  doing  what  I  have  never  done. 

What  moreover  could  be  more  absurd  then  to  deduce 
from  the  fact  that  we  as  individuals  are  not  able  always  to 
conclude  a  bargain  with  other  individuals,  that  there  is  not 
preserved  to  us  for  the  future  the  right  of  bargaining  with 
them  if  opportunity  shall  have  offered?  The  same  Vasquez 
has  also  most  justly  said  that  not  even  the  lapse  of  infinite 
tims  establishes  a  right  which  seems  to  have  arisen  from 
necessity  rather  than  choice. 

Therefore  in  order  to  establish  a  prescriptive  right  to 
the  trade  with  the  East  Indies  the  Portuguese  would  be 
compelled  to  prove  coercion.  But  since  in  such  a  case  as  this 
coercion  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  nature  and  obnoxious  to 
all  mankind,  it  cannot  establish  a  right.'  Next,  that  coercion 
must  needs  have  been  in  existence  for  so  long  a  time  that 
"the  memory  of  its  beginning  does  not  exist ";  that,  how- 
ever, is  so  far  from  being  the  case  that  not  even  a  hun- 
dred years  had  elapsed  since  the  Venetians  controlled  nearly 
the  entire  trade  with  the  East  Indies,  carrj'ing  it  via  Alex- 
andria.' Again,  the  coercion  ought  to  have  been  such  that 
it  was  not  resisted;  but  the  English  and  the  French  and 
other  nations  besides,  did  resist  it.  Finally,  it  is  not  suffi- 
cient that  some  be  coerced,  but  it  is  indispensable  that  all 
be  coerced,  because  the  possession  of  freedom  of  trade  is 
preserved  to  all  by  a  failure  to  use  coercion  upon  even  one 
person.  Moreover,  the  Arabians  and  the  Chinese  are  at  the 
present  day  still  carrying  on  with  the  people  of  the  East 
Indies  a  trade  which  has  been  uninterrupted  for  several 
centuries. 

Portuguese  usurpation  is  worthless. 


I 


•Vasqulus,  Controversias  lllustres  c.  4,  n. 
'  Guicciardjni,  Storia  d'ltaiia  XIX. 


II. 


f    r 


CAPVT  XII 

Nulla  aequitate  niti  Limtano8  in 
prohibendo  commercio 

Ex  his  quae  dicta  sunt  satis  perspicitur  eorum  caeca 
aviditas,  qui,  ne  quemquam  in  partem  lucri  admittant,  illis 
rationibus  conscientiam  suam  placare  student,  quas  ipsi 
magistri  Hispanorum  qui  in  eadem  sunt  causa  manifestae 
vanitatis  convincunt.'  Omnes  enim  qui  in  rebus  Indicis  usur- 
pantur  colores  iniuste  captari  quantum  ipsis  licet,  satis 
innuunt,  adduntque  numquam  earn  rem  serio  Theologoruni 
examine  probatam.  Ilia  vero  querela  quid  est  iniquius,  quod 
dicunt  Lusitani  quaestus  suos  exhauriri  copia  contra  licen- 
tium?  Inter  certissima  enim  luris  enuntiata  est,  nee  in  dolo 
eum  versari,  nee  fraudem  facere,  ne  damnum  quidem  alter! 
dare  videri,  qui  iure  suo  utitur;  quodmaximeverumest,sinon 
ut  alteri  noceatur,  sed  rem  suam  augendi  animo  quippiam 
fiat.'  Inspici  enim  debet  id  quod  principaliter  agitur,  non 
quod  extrinsecus  in  consequentiam  venit.  Immo  si  propria 
loquimur  cum  Vlpiano,  non  ille  damnum  dat,  sed  lucro  quo 
adhuc  alter  utebatur  eum  prohibet. 

Naturale  autem  est  et  summo  iuri  atque  etiam  aequitati 

•  Vasqiiius,  Controversiae  illustres  c.  10.  n.  10;  Victoria,  De  Indis  I,  I, 
n.  3;  Dip-st  VI,  1,  27  (De  rel  vindicatione,  L.  Sin  autcm,  §  penult.)  l^  17,  5.5  tt 
151  (De  divcrsis  regulis,  L.  Nullus  videtur,  et  L.  NVmo  damnum);  XLII,  8,  13 
(Quae  In  fraudem  creditorum,  L.  lUud  constat);  XXXIX,  9,  ?4  (De  damno 
infecto,  L.  Fluminum,  §  ult.);  Bartolus  on  Digest  XLIII,  I?,  1  (De  fluminilius 
I..  I,  §  5);  Castrensis  on  Code  III,  34,  10  (Dc  servitutibus,  L.  Si  til.i);  Digest 
XXXIX,  3,  1  (De  aqua,  L.  Si  cui,  §  Dcnique). 

■  Vasquius.  Controversiae  illustres  c.  4,  n.  3  et  seq.;  Digest  XXXIX,  2,  26 
(De  damno  infcrto,  L.  Proculus). 


CHAPTER  XII 

The  Portuguese  prohibition  of  trade  has  no  foundation 

in  equity 

From  what  has  been  said  thus  far  it  is  easy  to  see  the 
blind  cupidity  of  those  who  in  order  not  to  admit  any  one 
else  to  a  share  in  their  gains,  strive  to  still  their  consciences 
by  the  very  argimients  which  the  Spanish  jurists,  interested 
too  in  the  same  case,  show  to  be  absolutely  empty.*  For  they 
intimate  as  clearly  as  they  can  that  as  regards  India  all  the 
pretexts  employed,  are  far  fetched  and  imjust.  They  add 
that  this  right  was  never  seriously  approved  by  the  swarm 
of  theologians.  Indeed,  what  is  more  unjust  than  the 
complaint  made  by  the  Portuguese  that  their  profits 
are  drained  off  by  the  number  of  their  competitors?  An 
incontrovertible  rule  of  law  lays  down  that  a  man  who 
uses  his  own  right  is  justly  presumed  to  be  contriving 
neither  a  deceit  nor  a  fraud,  in  fact  not  even  to  be  doing  any 
one  an  injiu-y.  This  is  particularly  true,  if  he  has  no  inten- 
tion to  harm  any  one,  but  only  to  increase  his  own  property.* 
For  what  ought  to  be  considered  is  the  chief  and  ultimate 
intent  not  the  irrelevant  consequence.  Indeed,  if  we  may 
with  propriety  agree  with  Ulpian,  he  is  not  doing  an  injury, 
but  he  is  preventing  some  one  from  getting  a  profit  which 
another  was  previously  enjoying. 

Moreover  it  is  natural  and  conformable  to  the  highest 
law  as  well  as  equity,  that  when  a  gain  open  to  all  is  con- 
cerned every  person  prefers  it  for  himself  rather  than  for 

'Vnsquius,  Controversiae  iUustres  c.  10,  n.  10;  Victoria,  De  Indis  I,  1,  n.  3; 
Diitest  VI,  1.  27;  L,  IT,  55,  ISlj  XLII,  8,  13;  XXXIX,  3,  24;  Bartolus  on  Digest 
XLIII,  \3,  Ij  Castrensis  on  Code  III,  34,  10;  Di(fest  XXXIX,  3,  1. 

'Vasquius,  Controversiae  iiiustrcs  c.  4,  n.  3ff.;  Dlg«»t  XXXIX,  2,  26. 


70 


MARE  LIBEHVM 


conveniens,  ut  lucrum  in  medio  positum  suum  quisque  malit 
quam  alterius,  etiam  qui  ante  perceperat.'  Quis  ferat 
querentem  opificem  quod  alter  eiusdem  artis  exercitio  ipsius 
commoda  evertat?  Batavonim  autem  causa  eo  est  iustior, 
quia  ipsorimi  hac  in  parte  utilitas  cum  totius  himiani  generis 
utilitate  coniuncta  est,  quam  Lusitani  eversum  eunt.'  Neque 
hoc  recte  dicetur  ad  aemulationem  fieri,  ut  in  re  simili  ostendit 
Vasquius:  aut  enim  plane  hoc  negandum  est,  aut  asseveran- 
dum  non  ad  bonam  modo,  verum  etiam  ad  optimam  aemu- 
lationem fieri,  iuxta  Hesiodum : '  dyadr/  d'  "Epts  ijSt  fiporoiai 
'  bona  lis  mortalibus  haec  est '.  Nam  etiam  si  quis  pietate 
motus,  inquit  ille,  frumentum  in  summa  penuria  vilius 
venderet,  impediretur  improba  duritie  eorum  hominum,  qui 
saeviente  penuria  suum  carius  fuerant  vendituri.  Verum 
est  talibus  modis  minui  aliorum  reditus:  nee  id  negamus, 
ait,  '  sed  minuuntur  cum  universorum  hominum  commodo: 
ET  VTINAai  omnium  PRINCIPVM  et  TYRRANO- 
RVM  ORB  IS  reditus  ita  minuerentur '. 

Quid  ergo  tam  iniquum  videri  potest,  quam  Hispanos 
vectigalem  habere  Terrarum  Orbem,  ut  nisi  ad  illorum 
nutum  nee  emere  liceat  nee  vendere?  *  In  cunctis  civitatibus 
dardanarios  odio  atque  etiam  poenis  prosequimur;  nee  ullum 
tam  nefarium  vitae  genus  videtur,  quam  ista  annonae 
flagellatio."       Merito     quidem.       Naturae     enim     faciunt 

'  Vasquius,  I.  c 

'  Vasquius,  I.  c.  n.  5. 

*  Epyn  mi   'llfifpai  24. 

•Code  IV,  59  (De  monopoliis,  L.  1). 

*  Caietanus  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa  II.  II,  q.  T7,  n.  ],  nd  3. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


70 


another,  even  if  that  other  had  already  discovered  iV  Who 
would  countenance  an  artisan  who  complained  that  another 
artisan  was  taking  away  his  profits  by  the  exercise  of  the 
same  craft?  But  the  cause  of  the  Dutch  is  the  more  reason- 
able, because  their  advantage  in  this  matter  is  bound  up 
with  the  advantage  of  the  whole  human  race,  an  advantage 
which  the  Portuguese  are  trying  to  destroy.'  Nor  will  it  be 
correct  to  say,  that  this  is  done  in  rivalry,  as  Vasquez  shows 
in  a  similar  case.  For  clearly  we  must  either  deny  this  or 
affirm  that  it  is  done  not  only  in  honorable  bul  in  most  hon- 
orable rivalry,  for,  as  Hesiod  says,  '  This  rivalry  is  honora- 
ble for  mortal  men  '.'  For,  says  Vasquez,  if  any  one  should 
be  so  moved  by  love  for  his  fellow  man  as  to  offer  grain  at  a 
time  of  great  scarcity  for  a  lower  price  than  usual,  he  would 
be  prevented  by  the  wicked  and  hardhearted  men  who  had 
the  intention  of  selling  their  grain  at  a  higher  price  than 
usual,  because  of  the  pinch  caused  by  the  scarcity.  But,  some 
one  will  object,  by  such  methods  the  profits  of  others  will  be 
made  less.  '  We  do  not  deny  it ',  says  Vasquez,  '  but  they 
are  made  less  to  the  corresponding  advantage  of  all  other 
men.  And  would  that  the  profits  of  all  Rulers  and  Tyrants 
of  this  world  could  be  thus  lessened  '! 

Indeed  can  anything  more  unjust  be  conceived  than  for 
the  Spaniards  to  hold  the  entire  world  tributary,  so  that  it 
is  not  permissible  either  to  buy  or  to  sell  except  at  their  good 
pleasure?*  In  all  states  we  heap  odium  upon  grain  specu- 
lators and  even  bring  them  to  punishment ;  and  in  very  truth 
there  seems  to  be  no  other  sort  of  business  so  disgraceful  as 
that  of  forcing  up  prices  in  the  grain  market.''    That  is  not 

*  Vasquius,  same  reference. 

•  Vasquius,  same  reference,  n.  5. 

'  In  his  Worlcs  and  Days  [Tlio  entire  pfissage  as  translated  In-  A.  W.  Mair 
(Oxford  translation,  pafie  1)  is:  "For  v.hen  he  tliat  halii  no  liusiness  looketh  on 
liiiii  that  is  rich,  he  liasteth  to  plow  and  to  array  his  liousc:  and  neighbour 
vicUi  with  neighbour  hasting  to  be  rich:  good  is  tliis  Strife  for  men."). 

'  (otic  IV,  59. 

'  V ajrUa  on  Thoiiias  .\quina=,  Summa  II.  11,  q.  77,  a.  1,  a:!  3. 


i 


^.»,fei" 


71 


MARE  LIBERVM 


iniur^am,  quae  in  conunune  fecunda  est: '  neque  vero  cen- 
seri  debet  in  usus  paucorum  reperta  negotiatio,  sed  ut  quod 
alteri  deest  alterius  copia  pensaretur,  iusto  tamen  coni- 
pendio  omnibus  proposito,  qui  laborem  ac  periculum  trans- 
ferendi  in  se  suscipiunt. 

Hoc  ipsum  igitur  quod  in  republica,  id  est,  minore 
hominum  conventu,  grave  et  pemiciosum  iudicatur,  in 
magna  ilia  humani  generis  societate  ferendumne  est? 
ut  scilicet  totius  mundi  monopolium  faciant  populi  His- 
pani?  Invehitur  Ambrosius  in  eos  qui  maria  claudunt.' 
Augustinus  in  eos  qui  itine^-a  obstruunt ;  Nazianzenus  in ' 
coemptores  suppressoresque  mercium,  qui  ex  inopia  alioruni 
soli  quaestum  faciunt,  et  ut  ipse    '"cundissime  loquitur 

MaranfMyftaTtvovrat  rifS  irStiaf.    Quul    et    divini    sapientis 

sententia  publicis  diris  devovetur  sacerque  haLctur,  qui 
alimenta  supprimendo  vexat  annonam:  S  <Tvy4x<"y  airoy 
Stiftoxaraparot. 

Clament  igitur  Lusitani  quantum,  et  quam  diu  libebit: 
'Lucra  nostra  deciditis'.  Respondebunt  Batavi:  '  Ininio 
nostris  invigilamus.  Hocne  indignamini  in  partem  nos 
venire  ventorum  et  maris?  Et  quis  Hla  vobis  lucra  mansura 
promiserat?    Salvum  est  vobis,  quo  nos  contenti  sumus '. 

■  AristoUr,  PoUtic*  F,  9. 

'  Hexamrron  V,  10,  4,  q.  44. 

'  In  funcre  Baillil. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


71 


to  be  wondered  at,  for  such  speculators  are  doing  an  injury 
to  nature,  who,  as  Aristotle  says,  is  fertile  for  all  alike.' 
Accordingly  it  ought  not  to  be  supposed  that  trade  was  in- 
vented for  the  benefit  of  a  few,  but  in  order  that  the  lack  of 
one  would  be  counterbalanced  by  the  oversupply  of  another, 
a  fair  return  also  being  guaranteed  to  all  who  take  upon 
themselves  the  work  and  the  danger  of  transport. 

Is  the  same  thing  then  which  is  considered  grievous  and 
pernicious  in  the  smaller  community  of  a  state  to  be  put  up 
with  at  all  in  that  great  community  of  the  human  race? 
Shall  the  people  of  Spain,  forsooth,  assume  a  monopoly  of 
all  the  world?  Ambrose  inveighs  against  those  who  inter- 
fere with  the  freedom  of  the  sea;  *  Augustine  against  those 
who  obstruct  the  overland  routes ;  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus* 
against  those  who  buy  goods  and  hold  them,  and  thus  (as  he 
eloquently  says)  make  profits  for  themselves  alone  out  oi 
the  helplessness  and  need  of  others.  Indeed  in  the  opinion 
of  this  wise  and  holy  man  any  person  who  holds  back  grain 
and  thus  forces  up  the  market  price  ought  to  be  given  over 
to  public  punishment  and  be  adjudged  worthy  of  death. 

Therefore  the  Portuguese  may  cry  as  loud  and  as  long 
as  they  shall  please:  '  You  are  cutting  down  our  profits  'I 
The  Dutch  will  answer:  '  Nayl  we  are  but  looking  out  for 
our  own  interests!  Are  you  angry  because  we  share  with 
you  in  the  winds  and  the  sea?  Pray,  who  had  promised 
that  you  would  always  have  those  advantages?  You  are 
secure  in  the  possession  of  that  with  which  we  are  quite 
ct  intent  *. 

<  PoUtict  I,  9. 

*  Mrxmiirron  V,  10,  i,  q.  44. 

■  In  funrre  Bullli. 


CAPVT  XIII 

Batavis  tut  commercti  Indicant  qua 

pace,  qua  indutiis,  qua  belio 

retinendum 

Quare  aim  et  ius  et  aequum  postulet,  libera  nobis  ita 
ut  cuiquam  esse  Indiae  commercia,  superest,  ut  sive  cum 
Hispanis  pax,  sive  indutiae  fiunt,  sive  bellum  manet, 
omnino  earn,  quam  a  natura  habemus  libertatem  tueamur. 
Nam  ad  pacem  quod  attinet,  notum  est  earn  esse  duorum 
generum:  aut  enim  pari  foedere,  aut  impari  coitur.  Graeci* 
istam  vocant  ffvyfiijurfv  i£  fffov  banc  arrorSat  iS  tntrayitariav 
ilia  virorum  est,  haec  ingeniorum  servilium.  Demosthenes 
in  oratione  de  liberta'^j  Rhodiorum:'  xalrot  xfiv  ^oix  fiov- 
Xofiivovt  iXtvtHpovt  tivai  rd^  in  r<ay  iniTaynarwy  avvOtfMai 
tptvyttv,  <a(  iyyvS  dovXtlai  ovaai,  '  eos  qui  volunt  esse 
liberi  oportet  omnes  condiciones  quibus  leges  imponuntur 
ita  fugere  tamquam  quae  proximae  sunt  servituti '. 
Tales  autem  sunt  omnes  quibus  pars  altera  in  iure 
suo  imminuitur,  iuxta  Isocratis  definitioneni  *  vocantis 
ra  Tovt  hipovt  iXarrovyra  napa  ro  Hxatoy.  Si  cnim,  ut 
iiiquit  Cicero,* '  suscipienda  bella  sunt  ob  earn  causani,  ut  sine 
iniuria  in  pace  vivatur ',  sequitur  etxlem  auctore  *,  paotiii 
esse  vocandam,  non  pactionem  servitutis,  sed  tranquillani 
libertatem;  quippe  cum  et  Philosopliorum  et  Theologorum 

■  Thurrdidn,  Iiorrair),  Anducidri. 

'  Isorratr't,  ArrhldiuiiM  51. 

'  Paiieityrirut  170, 

<  De  offlriis  I,  M. 

'  iriiilippim  Xil,  14:  ruin  iis   furta  pax  mm  eril  |ia4,  trd  partio  M-mtutir  | 


CHAPTER  XIII 

The  Dutch  must  maintain  their  right  of  trade  with  the  Ea$t 
Indies  by  peace,  by  treaty,  or  by  war 

Wherefore  since  both  law  and  equity  demand  that  trade 
with  the  Ecst  Indies  be  as  free  to  us  as  to  any  one  else, 
it  follows  that  we  are  to  maintain  at  all  hazards  that  free- 
dom which  is  ours  by  nature,  either  by  coming  to  a  peace 
agreement  with  the  Spaniards,  or  by  concluding  a  treaty,  or 
by  continuing  the  war.  So  far  as  peace  is  concerned,  it  is 
well  known  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  peace,  one  made  on 
terms  of  equality,  the  other  on  unequal  terms.  The  Greeks ' 
call  the  former  kind  a  compact  between  equals,  the  latter 
an  enjoined  truce;  the  former  is  meant  for  high  souled 
men,  the  latter  for  servile  spirits.  Demosthenes  in  his 
speech  on  the  liberty  of  the  Rhodians'  says  that  it  was 
necessary  for  those  who  wisb-ni  to  b**  free  to  keep  away 
from  treaties  which  were  imposed  upon  them,  because  such 
treaties  were  abnost  the  same  as  slavery.  Such  conditions 
are  all  those  by  which  one  party  is  lessened  in  its  own  right, 
according  to  the  definition  of  Isocrates.*  For  if,  as  Cicero 
says,*  wars  must  be  undertaken  in  order  that  people  may 
live  in  pence  anharmed,  it  follows  that  peace  ought  to  mean 
not  an  agreement  which  entails  slavery,  but  an  undisturbed 
liberty,    especially    as    peace    and    justice    according    to 

'  Thncjrdidet,  Iiocrktes,  Andoridft. 

'  Ixicratrs,  Archidainoi  51  [Urotiu*  probftbty  quoted  here  from  memory  1. 

'Panegyric  178. 

*  De  oflklU  I.  34. 

n 


78 


MARE  LIBERVM 


complurium '  iudicio  pax  et  iustitia  nominibus  magis  quam 
re  differant,  sitque  pax  non  qualiscumque,  sed  ordinata 
Concordia. 

Indutiae  autem  si  fiunt  satis  apparet  ex  ipsa  indutianun 
natura  non  debere  medio  earum  tempore  condicionem 
cuiusquam  deteriorem  fieri,  cum  ferme  interdicti  uti  possi- 
detis instar  obtineant. 

Quod  si  in  bellum  trudimur  hostium  iniquitate,  debet 
nobis  causae  aequitas  spem  ac  fiduciam  boni  eventus  addere. 
Nam '  vnip  OIK  av  IXarriavrat  fttxpi  Swarov  narrtf  noXt- 
fiovfft,  nipl  Si  rov  frXioriMTttv  ovx  ovTwf,  '  pro  his  in 
quibus  iniuria  afficiuntur  omnes  quantum  omnino 
possunt  depugnant:  at  propter  alieni  cupiditatem  non 
item ';  quod  et  Alexander  Imperator  ita  expressit:  to  fiiv 
apxtiy  adlxooY  fpyoav  ovh  ayyoifiora  ixit  Ttjy  npoMXr/gtr,  to  6i 
roue  oxXovvTaf  anoaeUadat  in  re  r^f  dyatfjt  ovrtiSiffftiot  fxct 
TO  $a^paXioy,  ual  in  tov  fxif  aSiHtty  iXX'  ttftvyaadai  vnapxti 

TO  ivtXnt,  '  eius  a  quo  coepit  iniuria,  pr^vocatio  maxima 
invidiosa  est;  at  cum  dopelluntur  aggressores,  sicut  bona 
conscientia  fiduciam  secum  fert,  ita  quia  de  vindicanda  non 
de  inferenda  iniuria  laboratur,  spes  etiam  adsunt  optimae '. 
Si  ita  necesse  est,  perge  gens  mari  invictissima,  nee 
tuani  tantum,  sed  himiani  generis  libertatem  audacter 
propugna. 

Nee  te,  quod  clatm  centenis  remigat  alts, 
Tcrrcat:  INVITO  labitur  ilia  MARI: 
Quofhr  vehunt  prorae  Cciitaurica  taaa  minantet, 

Tiffna  cava  et  pictoa  ejcperiere  metut. 
Fratujit  et  attollit  vires  in  milite  causa; 
Quae  ni«  imta  auhest,  excutit  arma  pudor* 

'Polui  Lueanui  apud  Stobaeum,  De  iiutitia  (III,  p.  368  Warhimut-Hensr)! 
Clrmrn^  Alrxandrlnu*.  Stromatelt;  Aupittinus,  De  ciritatc  Dei  IV,  15. 
•  pFtTCj^thFops,  Pr  HhFrtatF  RhodJomm  XV,  10  (p.  153  R.). 
'  I'roprrtiiia    IV,   vl,   il-ii. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


78 


the  opinion  of  many  philosophers  and  theologians  ^  differ 
more  in  name  than  in  fact,  and  as  peace  is  a  harmonious 
agreement  based  not  on  individual  whim,  but  on  well 
ordered  regulations. 

If  however  a  truce  is  arranged  for,  it  is  quite  clear  from 
the  very  nature  of  a  truce,  that  during  its  continuance  no 
one's  condition  ought  to  change  for  the  worse,  inasmuch  as 
both  parties  stand  on  the  equivalent  of  a  uti  possidetis. 

But  if  we  are  driven  into  war  by  the  injustice  of  our 
enemies,  the  justice  of  our  cause  ought  to  bring  hope  and 
confidence  in  a  happy  outcome.  "  For,"  as  Demosthenes 
has  said,  "  every  one  fights  his  hardest  to  recover  what  he 
has  lost;  but  when  men  endeavor  to  gain  at  the  expense  of 
others  it  is  not  so.'"  The  Emperor  Alexander  has  ex- 
pressed his  idea  in  this  way: '  Those  who  begin  unjust  deeds, 
must  bear  the  greatest  blame;  but  those  who  repel  aggres- 
sors are  twice  armed,  both  with  courage  because  of  their 
just  cause,  and  with  the  highest  hope  because  they  are  not 
doing  a  wrong,  but  are  warding  off  a  wrong '. 

Therefore,  if  it  be  necessary,  arise,  O  nation  uncon- 
quered  on  the  sea,  and  fight  boldly,  not  only  for  your  own  lib- 
erty, but  for  that  of  the  human  race.  "  Nor  let  it  fright  thee 
that  their  fleet  is  winged,  each  ship,  with  an  hundred  oars. 
The  sea  whereon  it  sails  will  have  none  of  it.  And  though 
the  prows  bear  figures  threatening  to  cast  rocks  such  as 
Centaurs  throw,  thou  shalt  find  them  but  hollow  planks 
and  painted  terrors.  'Tis  his  cause  that  makes  or  mars  a 
soldier's  strength.  If  the  cause  be  not  just,  shame  strikes 
the  weapon  from  his  hands."  * 


■  Polut  Lucanuf  «pud  Stobacum,  De  iuititi«i  Clemrn'i  Alsundrinus,  Stro- 
matris;  Auguitine,  City  of  God  IV,  15. 

'On  the  liberty  of  the  Rhodians  XV,  10  [Plckard-Cambrldge'i  translation  I, 
page  49]. 

'  Fropcrtias  IV,  ri,  i7  55  [BuUcr's   (Locb)  transiatJon,  page  305], 


%.  I 


74 


MARE  LIBERVM 


if 


Si  iusta  multi,  et  ipse  Augustinus,'  arma  crediderunt  eo 
nomine  suscipi,  quod  per  terras  alienas  iter  innoxium  ne- 
garetur,  quanto  ilia  erunt  iustiora,  quibus  maris,  quod 
naturae  lege  commune  est,  usus  commimis  et  innoxius  postu- 
latur?  Si  iuste  oppugnatae  sunt  gentes  quae  in  suo  solo 
commercia  aliis  interdicebant,  quid  illae  quae  populos  ad  se 
nihil  pertinentes  per  vim  distinent,  ac  mutuos  eanmi  com- 
meatus  intercludunt?  Si  res  ista  in  iudicio  agitaretur,  du- 
bitari  non  potest  quae  a  viro  bono  expectari  deberet  sen- 
tentia,  ait  Praetor:'  'Quo  minus  illi  in  flumine  publico 
navem  agere,  ratem  agere,  quove  minus  per  ripam  exonerare 
liceat,  vim  fieri  veto '.  De  mari  et  litore  in  eandem  formam 
dandum  interdictum  docent  interpretes,  exemplo  Labeonis, 
qui  cum  interdiceret  Praetor:  *  '  Ne  quid  in  flumine  publico 
ripave  eius  facias,  quo  statio  iterve  navigio  deterius  sit,  fiat '; 
simile  dixit  interdictxmi  competere  in  mari:*  *  Ne  quid  in 
mari  inve  litore  facias,  quo  portus,  statio,  iterve  navigio 
deterius  sit,  fiat '. 

Immo  et  post  prohibitionem,  si  quis  scilicet  in  mari 
navigare  prohibitus  sit,  aut  non  permissus  rem  suam  ven- 
dere,  aut  re  sua  uti,  iniuriarum  eo  nomine  competere 
actionem  Vlpianus  respondit.'^  Theologi  insuper  et  qui 
tractant  casus,  quos  vocant,  conscientiarum,  Concordes  tra- 

•Dc  civltftte  Del  V,  1. 

■Digest  XLIII,  14,  1  (Ut  in  flumine  publico  navigare  liceat). 

•Digest  XLIII,  1«,  1  (De  fluminibui,  L.  1,  In  prlndplo). 

•  Digest  XI.III,  19.  1  (De  fluminlbus,  L.  1.  J  SI  In  mari  aliquid). 

•Digest  XLIII,  8,  9  (Ne  quid  in  loco  publico,  L.  9,  §  SI  quis))  XLVII,  10, 
13  et  94  (De  Inlurlia,  L.  Iniuriarum  actio,  et  L.  Si  quis  proprium)  j  Sllvestris, 
In  verbo  *  rektitutlo ',  3  sub  flnem;  Oldradus  et  Archldiaconus  on  Digest  XLVIil, 
19,  »  (De  lege  lulia  de  annona),  and  XLVII,  11,  6  (De  extraordinarilt  crlrainibus. 
L.  Annonam). 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


74 


If  many  writers,  Augustine  himself^  among  them,  be- 
lieved it  was  right  to  take  up  arms  because  innocent  pas- 
sage was  refused  across  foreign  territory,  how  much  more 
justly  will  arms  be  taken  up  against  those  from  whom  the 
demand  is  made  of  the  common  and  innocent  use  of  the  sea, 
which  by  the  law  of  nature  is  common  to  all?  If  those 
nations  which  interdicted  others  from  trade  on  their  own 
soil  are  justly  attacked,  what  of  those  nations  which  sep- 
arate by  force  and  interrupt  the  mutual  intercourse  of  peo- 
ples over  whom  they  have  no  rights  at  all?  If  this  case 
should  be  taken  into  court,  there  can  be  no  doubt  what 
opinion  ought  to  be  anticipated  from  a  just  judge.  The 
praetor's  law  says:  * '  I  forbid  force  to  be  used  in  preventing 
any  one  from  sailing  a  ship  or  a  boat  on  a  public  river,  or 
from  unloading  his  cargo  on  the  bank  \  The  commentators 
say  that  the  injunction  must  be  applied  in  the  same  man- 
ner to  the  sea  and  to  the  seashore.  Labeo,  for  example,  in 
commenting  on  the  praetor's  edict,' '  Let  nothing  be  done  in 
a  public  river  or  on  its  bank,  by  which  a  landing  or  a  channel 
for  shipping  be  obstructed ',  said  there  was  a  similar  interdict 
which  apphed  to  the  sea,  namely,* '  Let  lothing  be  done  on 
the  sea  or  on  the  seashore  by  which  a  harbor,  a  landing,  or 
a  channel  for  shipping  be  obstructed '. 

Nay  more,  after  such  a  prohibition,  if,  namely,  a  man  be 
prevented  from  navigating  the  sea,  or  not  allowed  to  sell  or 
to  make  use  of  his  own  wares  and  products,  Ulpian  says 
that  he  can  bring  an  action  for  damages  on  that  ground.' 
Also  the  theologians  and  the  casuists  agree  that  he  who 
prevents  another  from  buying  or  selling,  or  who  puts  his 

« city  of  God  V,  1. 

'  Digcft  XLIII.  14,  1. 

'Digest  XLIII.  U,  1. 

'Digest  XLIII.  la,  1. 

*  Digest  XLIII,  8.  9;  XLVII,  10,  13  and  M|  SUrestrU,  on  the  word  <  re- 
stitutio'; Oldradus  and  Archidlaconus  on  Digest  XLVIII,  I».  i.  and  XLVII.  11,  6 
(Oldrado  de  Ponte  (M3S5),  •  Bologna  canonist.  Arrhidiaconus  Is  probably  tha 
itaiiaa  dccretaUit  Guidd  Bosiu*.] 


75 


MARE  LIBERVM 


if 


f-i 


dunt,  eum  qui  alterum  vendere  aut  emere  impediat,  utilita- 
temve  propriam  publicae  ac  communi  praeponat,  aut  ullo 
modo  alterum  in  eo  quod  est  iuris  communis  impediat,  ad 
restitutionem  teneri  omnis  damni  viri  boni  arbitrio. 

Secundum  haec  igitur  vir  bonus  iudicans,  Batavis  liber- 
tatem  commerciorum  adiudicaret,  Lusitanos  et  ceteros,  qui 
earn  libertatem  impediunt,  vetaret  vim  facere,  et  damna 
restituere  iuberet.  Quod  autem  in  iudicio  obtineretur,  id 
ubi  iudicium  haberi  non  potest,  iusto  bello  vindicatur. 
Augustinus: ' '  Iniquitas  partis  adversae  iusta  ingerit  bella '. 
Et  Cicero:'  'Cum  sint  duo  genera  decertandi,  unum  per 
disceptationem,  alterum  per  vim,  conf  ugiendum  ad  posterius, 
si  uti  non  licet  priore '.  Et  Rex  Theodoricus:  '  Veniendum 
tunc  ad  arma,  cum  locum  apud  adversarium  iustitia  non 
potest  reperire '.  Et  quod  proprius  est  nostra  argumento,' 
Pomponius  eum  qui  rem  omnibus  communem  cum  incom- 
modo  ceterorum  usurpet,  MANV  PROHIBENDVM 
respondit.  Theologi  quoque  tradunt,  sicuti  pro  rerum 
cuiusque  defensione  bellum  recte  suscipitur,  ita  non  minus 
recte  suscipi,  pro  usu  earum  rerum  quae  naturali  iure  debent 
esse  communes.  Quare  ei  qui  itinera  praecludat,  evection- 
emque  mercium  impediat,  etiam  non  expectata  ulJa  publica 
auctoritate,  via  facti,  ut  loquuntur,  posse  occurri. 

Quae  cum  ita  sint,  minime  verendum  est,  ne  aut  Deus 

'  De  civitate  Del  IV. 
'  De  officiis  I,  34. 

'Digest  XLI,  i,  30   (De  adquirendo  rerum  dominio,  L.  Quamvis  quod  In 
litore)  J  Henrlcus  Ton  Gorcum.  De  bello  juito  9. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


75 


private  interests  before  the  public  and  common  interests, 
or  who  in  any  way  hinders  another  in  the  use  of  something 
which  is  his  by  common  right,  is  held  in  damages  to 
complete  restitution  in  an  amount  fixed  by  an  honorable 
arbitrator. 

Following  these  principles  a  good  judge  would  award 
to  the  Dutch  the  freedom  of  trade,  and  would  forbid  the 
Portuguese  and  others  from  using  force  to  hinder  that  free- 
dom, and  would  order  the  payment  of  just  damages.  But 
when  a  judgment  which  would  be  rendered  in  a  court 
cannot  be  obtained,  it  should  with  justice  be  demanded  in  a 
war.  Augustine*  acknowledges  this  when  he  says:  'The 
injustice  of  an  adversary  brings  a  just  war'.  Cicero 
also  says:'  "There  are  two  ways  of  settling  a  dispute; 
first,  by  discussion;  second,  by  physical  force;  we  must 
resort  to  force  only  in  case  we  may  not  avail  ourselves 
of  discussion."  And  King  Theodoric  says:  '  Recourse 
must  then  be  had  to  arms  when  justice  can  find  no  lodg- 
ment in  an  adversary's  heart'.  Pomponius,  however,  has 
handed  down  a  decision  which  has  more  bearing  on  our  argu- 
ment *  than  any  of  the  citations  already  made.  He  declared 
that  the  man  who  seized  a  thing  common  to  all  to  the 
prejudice  of  every  one  else  must  be  forcibly  prevented  from 
so  doing.  The  theologians  also  say  that  just  as  war  is 
righteously  undertaken  in  defense  of  individual  property, 
so  no  less  righteously  is  it  undertaken  in  behalf  of  the  use 
of  those  things  which  by  natural  law  ought  to  be  common 
property.  Therefore  he  who  closes  up  roads  and  hinders 
the  export  of  merchandise  ought  to  be  prevented  from  so 
doing  via  facti,  even  without  waiting  for  any  public 
authority. 

Since  these  things  are  so,  there  need  not  be  the  slightest 

•aty  of  God  IV. 

*De  oiBciU  I,  34  [Walter  MiUer's  (Loeb)  tnniUtion,  pa^e  ST]. 

'DigHt  XLI,  1,  50;  Heinrich  Ton  Uorcum,  De  bello  Justo  f. 


ft 


76 


MARE  LIBERVM 


eorum  conatus  sea'  idet,  qui  ab  ipso  iiutitutum  ius  naturae 
certissimum  violant,  aut  homines  ipsi  eos  inultos  patiantur, 
qui  solo  quaestus  sui  respectu  communem  humani  generis 
utilitatem  oppugnant 


ii' 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


76 


jrae 
itiir, 
teris 


fear  that  God  will  prosper  the  efforts  of  these  who  violate 
that  most  stable  law  of  nature  which  He  himself  has  in- 
stituted, or  that  even  men  will  allow  those  to  go  unpunished 
who  for  the  sake  alone  of  private  gain  oppose  a  common 
benefit  of  the  human  race. 


■     II; 


I 


if' 


CVM  gVB  HOC  TEMPV8  PLVRIMAE  ReGW  HmpANIABVM 
LriTEBAE  IN  MANT8  NOSTRAS  VENISSENT,  QVIBVS  IP8IVS 
ET  LVSITANOHVM  INSTITVTVM  MANIFE8TB  DETEGITVK, 
OPEEAE  PEETIVM  VI8VM  EST  EX  IIS,  QVAE  PLEEAEQVE 
EODEM  EIUNT  AB6VMENT0,  BINA8  IN  LaTINVM  SE**- 
MONEM  TRANSLATA8  EXHIBEBE. 

Domine  Martine  Alphonse  de  Castro,  Prorex  amicr  .  ^ 
Rex  multam  tibi  salutem  mitto: 

Cum  hisce  litteris  perveniet  ad  te  exemplum  tyc     i;a 
pressum  Edicti  quod  faciendum  curavi,  quo,  ob  rationcj  lu  .s 
expressas  videbis,  aliasque  meis  rebus  conducentes  prohicm 
commercium  omne  externorum  in  ipsis  partibus  Indiac 
aliisque  regionibus  transmarinis.    Quandoquidem  res  haec 
est  momenti  atque  usus  maximi,  et  quae  effici  summa  cum 
industria  debeat,  impero  tib."   ut  simulatque  litteras  has  et 
edictum  acceperis,  publicationem  eius  onmi  diligentia  pro- 
cures in  omnibus  locis  ac  partibus  istius  imperi,  idque  ipsum 
quod  edicto  continetur  exsequaris  sine  ullius  personae  ex- 
ceptione,  cuiuscumque  qualitatis,  aetatis,  condicionisve  sit, 
citra  omnem  moram  atque  excusationem,  procedasque  ad 
impletionem  mandati  via  merae  exsecutionis,  nuUo  admisso 
impedimento,  appellatione,  aut  gravamine  in  contrariuni, 
cuiuscumque  materiae  generis  aut  qualitatis.    lubeo  itaque 
hoc  ipsum  impleri  per  eos  ministros  ad  quos  exsecutio  per- 
tinet,  iisque  significari,  non  modo  eos  qui  contra  fecerint 
malam  operam  mihi  navaturos,  sed  eosdem  me  punitunim 
privatione  officionmi  in  quibus  mihi  serviunt. 

Quia  autem  relatum  est  mihi  commorari  in  istis  partibus 

77 


I 
I 


APPENDIX 

Tvio  letters  of  Philip  III,  King  of  Spain 

As  several  letters  of  the  King  of  Spain  have  come  of 
1.  ^^  .  )  our  hands,  in  which  his  design  and  that  of  the 
P./.iijrxu.;se  is  clearly  disclosed,  it  seemed  worth  while  to 
I'-ai  J.it.  into  Latin  two  of  them  which  had  particular  bear- 
rig  ujof!  ihe  controversy  at  issue,  and  to  append  them  here. 

LETTEE  I 

'}'c  Don  Martin  Alfonso  de  Castro,  our  beloved  viceroy,  I, 
the  King,  send  many  greetings: 

Together  with  this  letter  will  come  to  you  a  copy  printed 
in  type  of  an  edict  which  I  have  taken  much  pains  to  draw 
up,  by  which,  for  reasons  which  you  will  see  expressed,  and 
for  other  reasons  which  are  consonant  with  my  interests,  I 
prohibit  all  commerce  of  foreigners  in  India  itself,  and  in 
all  other  regions  across  the  seas.  As  this  n  atter  is  of  the 
greatest  importance  and  serviceableness,  and  ought  to  be 
carried  out  with  the  highest  zeal,  I  command  you,  as  soon 
as  you  shall  have  received  this  letter  and  edict,  to  further 
with  all  diligence  its  publication  in  all  places  and  districts 
under  your  ^  uricdiction,  and  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of 
the  «  act  w  lout  exception  of  any  person  whatscever,  no 
matter  what  nis  quality,  age,  or  condition,  and  without  delay 
and  excuse,  and  to  proceed  to  the  fulfilment  of  this  com- 
mand with  the  full  power  of  your  authority,  no  delay, 
appeal,  or  obstacle  to  the  contrary,  being  admitted,  of  any 
kind,  sort,  or  quality. 

Ther-fore  I  oidei'  that  this  duty  He  discharged  by  those 

77 


78 


MARE  LIBERVM 


e:  *emo8  multos  variamm  nationum,  Italos,  Gallos,  Ger- 
manos,  Belgas,  quonim  pars  maior,  quantum  intelligimus, 
eo  venit  per  Fersida  et  Turcarum  imperium,  non  per  hoc 
regnum,  adversus  quos  si  ex  huius  Edicti  praescripto  ac 
rigore  procedatur,  posse  inde  nonnullas  difficultates  sequi, 
si  illi  ad  Mauros  inimicos  perf ugiant,  vicinisque  munitionum 
mearum  dispositionem  indicent,  rationesque  monstrent  quae 
rebus  meis  nocere  possent,  exsequi  te  hoc  edictum  volo  prout 
res  et  tempus  ferent,  atque  ea  uti  prudentia,  qua  illae  diffi- 
cultates evitentur,  ou-ando  ut  omnes  extemos  in  potestate 
tua  habeas  eosque  custodias  pro  cuiusque  qualitate,  ita  ut 
adversus  imperium  nostnmi  nihil  valeant  attentare,  utque 
ergo  omnino  eum  finem  consequar  quern  hoc  Edicto  mihi 
propositi. 

Scriptae  Vlyssipone  XXVIII  Novembris,  Anno 
MDCVI.  Subsignatum  erat  Rex.  Inscriptio.  Pro  Regc. 
Ad  Dominum  Martinum  Alfonsum  de  Castro  Consiliarium 
suum,  et  suum  Proregem  Indiae. 


t* 


Prorex  amice  Rex  multam  salutem  tibi  mitto: 
Etsi  pro  certo  habeo  tua  praesentia,  iisque  viribus  cum 
quibus  in  partes  austrinas  concessisti,  perduelles  Hollandos, 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


78 


officers  to  whom  its  execution  belongs,  and  that  they  be  in- 
formed that  not  only  will  those  who  disobey  serve  me  ill, 
but  that  I  will  punish  them  by  depriving  them  of  the  offices 
in  which  they  now  serve  me. 

Further,  inasmuch  as  it  has  been  reported  to  me  that 
within  your  jurisdiction  there  are  sojourning  many  for- 
eigners of  different  nations,  Italians,  French,  Germans,  and 
men  of  the  Low  Countries,  the  larger  part  of  whom  as  we 
know  came  there  by  way  of  Persia  and  Turkey,  and  not 
through  our  realm;  r  id  inasmuch  as,  if  this  edict  be  rigidly 
enforced  against  those  persons  to  the  letter,  some  incon- 
veniences might  follow,  if  they  should  escape  to  the  Moors, 
our  enemies,  and  make  known  to  our  neighbors  the  dis- 
position of  my  forces,  and  thus  show  ways  that  they  might 
be  able  to  harm  my  dominion:  Therefore,  I  wish  you  to 
carry  out  the  provisions  of  this  edict  as  the  exigencies  of 
circumstances  and  occasion  demand,  and  to  use  all  pru- 
dence necessary  in  order  to  avoid  those  difficulties,  taking 
especial  pains  to  keep  all  foreigners  in  your  power,  and  to 
guard  them  in  accordance  with  their  individual  rank,  so  that 
they  may  have  no  opportimity  to  attempt  anything  preju- 
dicial to  our  power,  that  thus  I  may  attain  fully  that  end 
which  I  have  set  forth  in  this  edict. 

Given  at  Lisbon,  on  the  28th  of  November  in  the  year 
of  oiu*  Lord,  1606.  Signed  by  the  king,  and  addressed:  For 
the  king,  to  Don  Martin  Alfonso  de  Castro,  his  Councillor, 
and  Viceroy  for  the  East  Indies. 


USTTEB  II 

To  our  beloved  viceroy,  I,  the  King  tend  many  greetings: 

Although  I  consider  it  absolutely  certain  that  your  pres- 
ence and  the  forces  which  you  took  with  you  into  those 
Eastern  regions,  guarantee  that  our  enemies,  the  l>utch, 


79 


BIARE  LIBERVM 


qui  illic  haerent,  nee  minus  indigenas  qui  eis  reeeptum  prae- 
bent,  ito  castigatos  fore,  ut  ne^  hi,  nee  iUi  tale  quicquam  in 
postenim  audeant ;  expediet  tamen,  ad  res  tuendas,  ut  iustam 
classem,  eique  operi  idoneam,  cum  tu  Goam  redibis,  in  istis 
Maris  partibus  relinquas,  eiusque  imperium  et  summam 
praefecturam  mandes  Andreae  Hurtado  Mendosac,  aut  si 
quern  ei  muneri  aptiorem  iudicabis,  quemadmodum  pro  tuo 
in  me  affectu  confido,  ea  in  re  non  aliud  te  respecturum 
quam  quod  rebus  meis  erit  utilissimum. 

Scriptae  Madritii  XXVII  Ian.  MDCVII.  Signatum 
Rex.  Inscriptio.  Pro  Rege.  Ad  Dominum  Martinum  Al- 
fonsum  de  Castro  suum  Consiliarium,  ct  suum  Proregem 
Indiae. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


79 


in 
un 
tis 
on 

si 
uo 
un 

im 
l1- 

Dl 


who  infest  those  quarters  as  well  as  the  natives  who  give 
them  a  welcome  reception,  will  be  so  thoroughly  punished 
that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever  dare  such  prac- 
tices in  the  future:  still  it  will  be  expedient  for  the  protec- 
tion of  our  interests,  that,  when  you  shall  return  to  Goa, 
you  leave  in  those  parts  of  the  sea  a  fleet  large  and  capable 
enough  to  do  the  business,  and  also  that  you  delegate  the 
supreme  command  of  that  fleet  to  Andrea  Hurtado  de 
Mendoza,  or  to  any  one  else  whom  you  shall  consider  better 
fitted  for  this  post.  I  rely  upon  your  affection  for  me, 
knowing  that  in  this  matter  you  will  do  nothing  but  what 
will  be  most  useful  to  my  interests. 

Given  at  Madrid  the  27th  day  of  January  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1607.  Signed  by  the  king,  and  addressed:  For 
the  king,  to  Don  Martin  Alfonso  de  Castro,  his  Councillor, 
and  Viceroy  for  the  East  Indies. 


u 


i . 


INDEX 


Btfirtnett  art  to  p^tga  of  Uti  and  tratulation  alike. 


Accuniuf,  biographical  note,  i\,  n.  t; 

cited,  51. 
Agamemnon,  mention  of,  9. 
Agreementi,  when  not  binding,  3i. 
Air,  common  to  all,  98;  nature  of,  39. 
Alciatuf,  A.,  biographical  note,  10  n.  9. 
Alexander,  Emperor,  quoted,  T3. 
Alexander  the  Great,  mention  of,  14, 

40. 
Alexander  VI,  Pope,  reference  to,  15, 

45. 
Alexandria,  mention  of,  68. 
Ambrose,  St.,  biographical  note,  33  n. 

5;  cited,  59,  71;  quoted.  39. 
Amoritcs,  mention  of,  9. 
/Vndncldcs,  cited,  79  n.   1. 
An)(elus    Aretinus,    biographical    note, 

4H  n.  9;  reference  to,  M,  49,  50,  59,  55. 
Apollinaris,  mention  of,  39. 
Aquinas,    Tho*.,    biographical    note,    13 

n.  4;  mention  of,  13,  lU. 
Arabians,  mention  of,  40,  68. 
Arbitration,  6. 

Arrhidiaconus,   cited,   74   n.    5. 
ArUtotle,  ritetl,  61,  63,  71 ;  quoted,  63. 
Art  of  exchange,  definition  of,  61. 
Athenaeus,  reference  to,  29. 
Atlirnians,  mention  nf,  9. 
.\iigu9tinr,   St.,   cited,   71,   74;   quoted, 

75;  reference  to,  9. 
Augustus,  mention  of,  19,  41. 
A\lenus,  quoted,  iW,  24. 
Ayala,  reference  to,  16  n.  5. 
.\tt«-8,  mention  of,  9. 

Hsihus.  J.  P.,  biographical  note,  49  n. 

H;  cited,  49;  mention  of,  55. 
Ilaldis   de    Ubaldis,   biographical    note, 

0  n.  7:  miction  of,  9,  55. 
ilartolu-.,    liuitrraphical    note,    48    n.    *; 

citcil,  48;   referenr.-   from,  19  ii.  9. 
Hennptt,   C.    E.,   trnnslatinn    from,   31. 
Ilfrnhardus,    St.,    reference    from,    16 

i>   •^ 
llixfhius.  quoted,  19. 
■Ill   llnifi,  see  Silvliis. 
Hnloirtipse,   mention   of,  9 
Butler,  translation   from,  7S. 

Ciidle,  mention  of,  40. 
rspjim  Anilpater,  cite«l.  40 
Calrtanus,   T.    (Cajetan),    biographical 
tmte.   19   n.   4;   referencr   to,    17,    19. 


Cape  of  Good  Hope,  mention  of,  40, 

59. 
Caatrensis,  A.  de,  biographical  note,  53 

n.  I;  cited,  53. 
Caatrensis,    P.    de    (de    Castro),    bio- 
graphical   note,   49   n.    •;    reference 

from,  29  n.  1. 
Castro,  M.  C.  de,  letters  to,  T7. 
CeUus,   cited,   30,  31,  34. 
Ceylon,  mention  of,  11,  19. 
Charles  V,  Emperor,  reference  to,  91. 
Chinese,  mention  of,  62,  68. 
Cicero,  cited,  72;  quoted,  23,  95,  97,  88, 

75;  reference  to,  29. 
Cinus,  cited,  63  n.   1. 
Claudius,   Emperor,   mention   of,  41. 
Clemens   Alexandrinus,  cited,  73   n.   1. 
Coercion,  Portuguese,  in  case  of  East 

Indies,  68. 
Columella,    reference   to,   39. 
Comines,  P.  de,  biographical  note,  98 

n.  3. 
Commerce,    origin    of,    62. 
Common   ownership,   definition   of,   23. 
Common   right,  44. 

Community  of  use,  annihilation  of,  62. 
Connanus,    F.    de,    biographical    note, 

13  n.   2. 
Conscience,   3. 
Contract,  nature  of,  :U. 
Cornelius    N'epos,   cited,   40. 
Council  of  Spain,  mention  of,  90. 
Council  of  Toledo,  mention  nf,   19. 
Corarruvias,    I).,    biographical    note,   9 

n.  3. 
Crown  properties,  in  sea  and  river,  36. 
Custom,  establistied  by  privilege,  52. 

I)emosthi'ne«,   cited,    7.?;   quoted,   73. 

Divine  law.   I. 

Donation  of  Pope  Alexander  VI,  ref- 
erence  to.    15.    18,   4,4.  86. 

Uoncllus.  11.  (Ooneuu),  biographical 
note,   li?  n,  9. 

Dryden,  J.,  tranHlntinni  from,  7.  8.  96. 

Ouarenus   liioftraplilrnl    note.   27   n.   4. 

Dutch,  answer  to  Portiipiieic,  71  j  East 
India  trade  to  be  maintained  by,  79; 
naviKHtion  bv,  50;  reasonable  claims 
of,  70. 

Eai.!  Inilic.  iiientiiiii  of.  tii;  not  chat- 
trlK  of  I'.irtugucsr,  21,  60,  68;  PortV- 


81 


82 


INDEX 


!* 


guese  claim  of  exclusiTe  right  to 
trade  in,  61;  Portuguese  not  flrtt  in, 
41;  right  of  trade  to  be  kept  with, 
72;  way  is  free  to,  37. 

Emmanuel,  King  of  Portugal,  mention 
of,  59. 

English,  mention  of,  43. 

Ennius,    quoted,   38. 

Equity,  chapter  on,  09. 

Estius,  biographical  note,  9  n.  5. 

Exchange,  art  of,  defined,  61;  deriva- 
Uon  of,  6i. 

Exhaustion,  question  of,  57. 

Expediency,    1. 

Faber,  J.,  biographical  note,  34  n.  9; 
reference  to,  34,  5i. 

Fachinham,  N.,  biographical  note,  M 
n.   X 

Felinus,  M.  S.,  biographical  note,  40 
n.  if  cited,  49. 

Fishing,  an  ancient  national  right,  56; 
free  to  all,  Si,  38;  not  legal  to  pre- 
vent, 33,  51;  revenues  from,  36;  a 
servitude,    34. 

Fleets,  maintenance  of,  35. 

Free  navigation,  chapter  on,  7. 

Freedom  of  trade,  basis  of,  63;  chap- 
ter  on,   61;   Dutch   sihouid   have,   75. 

French,  mention  of,  43;  navigation  by, 
59. 

Uaius  Caesar,  mention  of,  40. 
Genoese,  mention  of,  48,  53,  54,  56,  58. 
Uentilis,  A.,  biographical  note,  8  n.  i. 
Uoa,  mention  of,  79. 
Gorrura,  II.  v.,  cited,  75  n.  3. 
Gordinnus,    Fab.    Claud.,    biographical 

note,   li   n.   1;  mention  of,   13. 
Grandpont,  A.  G.  de.,  xi. 
Greeks,    rcfrirnre   to,    19 
Grrjfory,  mrntiun  of,   19. 
(Jrefpiry   of  Nstiansus,  ci'.ed,   71. 
Guicciardini,  cited,  68  n.   i. 

Minno,  reference  to,  40. 

Harris,  K.  I.,  translations  from,  H,  ii. 

Hercules,  mention  of,  9. 

Hermngenianus,  quoted,  i6. 

Hesiod,  quoted,  70;  reference  to,  M. 

Hnmer,  cited,  6i. 

Horace,  quoted,  19,  i3,  31, 

Hugo,   reference   from,   16  n.   3. 

Hunting,  an  ancient  national  right,  56. 

India,  mention  of,   19. 

Inner  sea,  as  distinguished  from  outer 

sea,  37. 
Innorenlius,  reference  from,  19  n.  9. 
Innocent    passafre,    90,   43,    74. 
International    rights,   ^1. 
Isemia,  A.,  biographical  note,  96  n.  *. 


Isocratet,  cited,  79  n.  I,  9. 
Israelites,  mention  of,  9. 

James,  H.  R.,  translation  from,  19. 

Jason,  cited,  54  n.  1. 

Java,  mention  of,  11. 

John,  King  of  Portugal,  mention  of. 
59. 

Jowett,  B.,  translation  from,  63. 

Jurisdiction,  distinguished  from  owner- 
ship, 35. 

Labeo,  quoted,  31,  74. 

Law  of   Human  Society,  9. 

Law  of  Nations,  7,  9,  98,  31,  61,  63; 
right  conception  of,  59. 

Law  of  Nature,  9,  5,  93;  right  con- 
ception of,  59. 

Law  of  property,  95. 

Legitimate   rulers,   19. 

Leo,  Emperor,  cited,  33. 

Lucullus,  mention  of,  39. 

Mair,    A.    W.,    translation    from,    70. 

Malacca,  mention  of,  59. 

Ma       nus,  cited,  39,  48,  49;  reference 

to,   JJ. 

Martial,    quoted,    39. 
Martin,  J.  C,  xii. 
Megarians,  mention  of,  8. 
Mendota,  A.   H.  de,  mention  of,  79. 
Miller,    W.,   translations    from,  97,   ^8, 

75. 
.Milton,  quoted,  U  n.  *. 
Moluccas,  mention  of,  11. 
Monopoly,  question  of,  71. 
Morocco,  mention   of,  40. 

Natural  I^w,  9,  5,  93,  53. 

Navigation,  Dutch,  59;  free  to  all,  7, 
39,  38,  44,  46,  55,  56;  Portuguese,  M; 
prescriptive  right  claimed  by  Portu- 
guese, 54,  60;  protection  of,  3j. 

Naxiansenus,  see  Gregory  of  Naxiaiisus. 

N'eratius,  reference  to,  98. 

Nonius  .Marcellus,  quoted,  19  n.  9. 

Occupation,  definition  of,  95,  39,  IH; 
mention  of,  Jl,  34;  not  to  afTiit 
common   use,   30, 

Oldradus  (Oldrado  de  Ponte),  bio- 
graphical note,  74  n.  5. 

OsoriuB,  H.,  biographical  note,  59  n.  I 

Outer  sea,  as  distinguished  from  inner 
sea,   37. 

Ovid,   quoted,   36,  98. 

Ownership,  common,  96;  private,  29. 
33,    69;    transition    to,    94. 

Pnnormitanus,  cited,  67   n.   9. 

Papal  Donation,  chapters  on,  15.  45.  «« 

Paplnlan,   cited,   60;   quoted,   48. 


INDEX 


88 


Pmul  III,  Pope,  Tefeicnce  to,  91, 

Paulus,  cited,  S9.  51. 

Penonal  right,  35. 

Peter,  St,  mentioD  of,  16. 

Pliilip  III  of  Spain,  letter*  of,  77. 

PicMrd-Cambrioge,  translation  from, 
73. 

Pirates,  treatment  of,  35. 

Placentinus,   quoted,  34. 

Plato,  cited,  63. 

Plautus,  quoted,  89. 

Pliny,  cited,  19,  33,  40,  41,  63;  quoted,  7. 

Plutarcli,  reference  to,   14. 

Polus  Lucanus,  cited,  73  n.  1. 

Pomponius,  cited,  SO,  75. 

Pomponius  Mela,  Quoted,  40  n.  1. 

Pope,  The,  no  rtiht  in  temporal  mat- 
ters, 45;  no  auuoritf  again&t  law  of 
nature  and  of  nations,  66. 

Portuguese,  arrogant  pretensions  of, 
30,  40.  43.  75;  claim  of  exclusive 
right  to  trade.  61;  claim  to  ocean, 
37;  desire  for  profits,  4?,  60,  71; 
mention  of,  56,  65;  not  first  in  East 
Indies.  41. 

Prescription,  acquisition  by,  40,  50; 
chapters  on,  47,  67;  definition  of, 
47;  failure  of,  50,  SI;  immemorial 
time  no  Iwlp  to,  40,  58;  reference 
to,  4.  54. 

Pretexts  for  war,  18. 

Private  possessions,  reference  to,  W. 

Privative   right,   «S. 

Propertius,  quoted,  73. 

Property,  origin   of,  87. 

Ptolemaeus,  cited,  41. 

Public  opinion,  3. 

Public  territory,  origin  of,  34. 

Quintilian,  quoted,  95. 

Hevenues,  on  Asheries,  36. 
Right  of  innocent  passage,  80,  43,  74. 
Right  ot  navigation,  not  Portuguese  be- 
cause of  Papal  Donation,  45. 
Rivalry,  comment  on.  70. 
Kuman  Church,  mention  of,  10. 

Sandeus,  see  Felinus. 

Saracens,   reference   to,   10,   17. 

Sfaevola,  mention  of,  30. 

.Scott,  J.  B.,  Introductory  note  by,  v. 

Sra,  The,  common  to  all,  88,  30,  34,  37. 
4!i,  44,  58.  55:  defined  by  law  of 
nations,  88;  nature  of,  31.  90;  not 
exhausted  by  u«e,  43,  57.  not  mer- 
chandise, 34;  not  PortttgiMiw  by 
Papal  nonation.  45;  not  subject  to 
servitu^,  35,  36;  sovereignty  of,  53. 

iseeshore,  comaaon  to  all,  W,  30;  how 
tu  he  used,  90,  34;  itglit  of  Roman 
peapie  to,  31. 


Seneca,  cited,  63;  quoted,  8.  84,  85, 
86,  87. 

Shahan,  BUhop,  xii. 

Sfgonius,  C  biographical  note,  9  n.  9. 

Silvestris,  cited.  46  n.   1. 

Silvius,  P..  biographical  note,  17  n.  I; 
reference   from,  17. 

Smith,  K.  P.,  xl. 

Sovereignty,  grant  by  reason  of,  17; 
matter  of  positive  law,  90;  Papal 
Donation  gives  no  right  to,  chapter 
on,  15;  a  particular  proprietorship, 
88,  84;  by  right  of  conquest,  18;  by 
right  of  discovery,  11;  title  to,  11; 
universal,  84. 

Spaniards,  arrogance  of,  70,  71;  claim 
to  ocean,  37,  54;  mention  of,  56. 

Strabo,  quoted,  41. 

Sylvius,  see  Silrius. 

Tacitus,   quoted,    10. 
Temporal  possessions,  10. 
Theodoric,  King,  quoted,  75. 
Thucydides,  cited,  7*  n.   1;  quoted,  87. 
Title  by  prescription,  destroyed,  50. 
Tolls,  U,  36. 

Torquemada,  see  Turre  Crrmata. 
Trade,   freedom  of,  61,  63,  78;  origin 

of,  68;  Portuguese  claim  to  right  of, 

61. 
Trajan,  mention  of,  41. 
Turre  Cremate,  reference  from,  16  n.  3. 

Ulpian,  cited,  31,  33,  35,  U,  51, 
63,  74;  reference  to,  88,  69. 

Use,  deflnitiun  of,  84,  87;  sea  not  ex- 
hausted by,  43;  things  susceptible  to 
universal,  89. 

Usurpation,  definition  of,  58;  Portu- 
guese  worthless,   6H. 

Uti   po$tiditu,  38,   73. 

Varro,  reference  to,  39. 

Vasquius,  F.  .M.  (Vasqaei),  biographi- 
cal note,  58  n.  4;  cited,  53,  67,  68; 
quoted,   58,   55,   56,   58,    70. 

Venetians,  mention  uf,  9,  43,  48,  53, 
54,  56,  58. 

Vergil,  quoted,  7,  8,  86;  reference  to, 
80. 

X'ii'toria,  K.  dc,  bio^aphirsl  njle,  9 
n.  3;  reference  to,  9,  13,  17,  18. 

War.  pretext!!  for,  18,  iO. 
Water,  cnmnum  t<i  all,  ix 
West    Indies,    (rlaimed    liv    Portuguese, 

54. 
WiHoufHtoy,  W.  W..  xii. 
World   aranopoly.  question  of,  71. 

Zuarias,  K..  biographical  noti-,  44  n.  3. 


NUatOCOPV   DtSOlUTION   TfST  CHART 

lANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No   SI 


A 


/IPPLIED  IfvHGE    Inc 

'6M   Last    Mai-^    SI'**' 

Hncfi»SI»r     N»«    'Of*  14609         uSA 

(  '16)   »S?  -  0100      Prion* 

(716)  288  -  ^989   ■  ►'o* 


FICHE    3    NOT 


3  NOT  REQUIRED 


